User talk:Stemonitis/Archive21

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

This archive page covers approximately the dates between September 1 2007 and June 21 2008.

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

Crustacean illustrations

You may find this source for illustrations of interest. Lakester - Treatise on Zoology Shyamal 09:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Fingerstyle mistakenly merged

Hello! I've undone the redirect you placed on Fingerstyle to Fingerpicking. It seems you mistakenly did this in the wrong direction. As the user discussion overwhelmingly established, Fingerstyle is by far the dominant term, and the consensus after several months was that the redirection should be from Fingerpicking to Fingerstyle. That was, in fact, the redirect requested of an admin.

If you can redirect in the proper direction, by all means please do so! Thanks. -- P L E A T H E R _talk 04:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Redirects do not need administrative intervention, and I was only intervening because another user was having difficulties. If you want to reverse the direction of the merger, by all means do so. My personal preference would be for "fingerpicking" over "fingerstyle", but my preference counts for little against an established consensus. --Stemonitis

Thank you, sir. I've done so. -- P L E A T H E R _talk 22:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Romanesque architecture

Thank you for pointing out the naming conventions to me. There were several relevant points which I didn't know about.

About ownership of the article- It's always an easy one to throw up at people who create articles or make the major contribution to existing articles. Some articles must be defended rigorously, and it is often (but not always) a major contributor to the article that does it. If I did not maintain the articles that I write as if I owned them, then some of them would deteriorate into absolute crap almost overnight.

Leonardo da Vinci is a case in point. Even despite the creation of three extra articles, (one on his private life, one on Cultural depictions and one on his science ) one cannot prevent well-meaning kids from suddenly dropping in a whole paper on Leonardo's science that they wrote as a college project, or latching onto a single name ie "Last Supper" and adding a lengthy sentence about Dan Brown's book to the middle of the intro because they found the buzz word that brought that to mind, and don't consider the context in which "Last Supper" is being mentioned in the present sentence. Never mind vandalism. It is well-meaning people who are not highly literate that do the most real damage to high quality wikipedia articles.

As for your renaming- This is a relatively new article. It has been written almost in its entirety by one person, though other editors have added a few pics and done some minor stuff. Common courtesy would usually suggest that before you moved a recently created article, you dropped a message to its creator, since wiki facilitates easy contact. People who have actually been involved in editting the art/architecture articles generally do this sort of thing. The other possibility is to leave a fairly solid explanation for the move on its talk page. --Amandajm 07:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely right that keeping a watchful eye on an article is useful, and it is no violation of WP:OWN. I am watchful of articles I've created or worked on heavily, as I expect most active writers are, and as long as improvements are allowed, that's no bad thing. I suppose I could have left a message on the talk page, but in this instance the title seemed so clearly contrary to the naming concentions and established practice that I didn't think anyone could possibly object. The naming conventions are complicated and difficult, and it's no surprise when people sometimes get titles a bit wrong. Look through Category:Stubs, and you'll probably see several ill-capitalised pages listed in the first 200, for example. I don't know all the details of page naming by any means, but the previous name was so unlike other titles in Wikipedia that it would have had to have been changed sooner or later. Consider it less discourtesy, and more simple boldness — that was certainly the intention. --Stemonitis 07:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Denizen of the deep

Hi, I just spotted your Upogebia deltaura article and thought it could help cheer up Fauna of Scotland#Fish and sea life. I added the image there, but then discovered that I could not access the full citation. By implication the statement that the creature is "a mud lobster that is commonly found in Scottish maerl beds" seems uncontroversial, but if you think it is inaccurate I'd appreciate it if you would either tidy it up or let me know. Thanks. Ben MacDui (Talk) 09:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The second paragraph of that paper's introduction says:

Preliminary in situ observations on maerl grounds at several sites in Scotland revealed that large burrows of similar external appearance were common and important features of the habitat. Use of a range of remote sampling gear on maerl beds in the Clyde Sea area failed to capture the organism responsible but subsequent use of a diver-operated air-list, following methods developed on Irish maerl ground (Keegan & Könnecker, 1973), revealed that these burrows were occupied by the thalassinidean shrimp Upogebia deltaura (Leach).

That seems to confirm that it commonly occurs in Scottish maerl beds. If that's not enough (or even if you're just interested), send me an email, and I'll gladly send you the whole paper as a PDF. --Stemonitis 09:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

That's fine thanks. I'll get back to you when/if I get round to thinking about Crustaceans of Scotland. Ben MacDui (Talk) 10:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC) PS Thanks for your comment about the Island of fleas. Its an AfD as far as I'm concerned, but also low on my priority list at present.

agelista redirect

hi stemonitis,

i've recreated the Agelista andina redirect you deleted: Log. right now, the genus is monotypic, and we'll see if the 'three undescribed species' will ever be described ;) cheers :) --Sarefo 18:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

If it's monotypic, then that's fine. Obviously when I deleted it, it didn't seem to be monotypic. I've got no idea now why I thought that. --Stemonitis 18:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Triops longicaudatus

I am keeping on trying to promote Triops longicaudatus to GA status, but I need some help proposing the improvements that need to be made. I took care of (most of?) the ones you pointed out. Please take a look at the article again, when you have time. Thank you. --Crustaceanguy 21:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Grand Duke Constantine Nicholaievich of Russia

Today I initiated a move request for the page Grand Duke Constantine Nicholaievich of Russia to Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich of Russia. An hour after I made the move request Miguelemejia moved the page unilaterally (not for the first time). Could you please do something? Noel S McFerran 22:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

September 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Axius serratus. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Ben^talk 09:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This is just silly. There is no way that the current article Axius serratus belongs on Wikispecies, and I said as much. There was no assumption of bad faith, merely reversion of an ill-advised edit. Also, trying to "welcome" someone who's been here much longer than you is pathetic and patronising. --Stemonitis 09:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Request

Since you have closed several recent page-move requests in the "apartheid" area, and appear to be otherwise uninvolved in this subject matter, I was wondering if you might take a look here as well, and take administrative action if appropriate. Although tagged as a merge proposal, it is really a request to move an article, since the "target" article (Apartheid) is currently a redirect. I mentioned this in the discussion, but it appears that it was never listed at WP:RM. The discussion seems to have reached an end, with a majority opposed to the proposal, and now it is just sort of sitting there with the merge tags still in place. If I should be making this request elsewhere, please let me know. Thank you. 6SJ7 04:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm going to be rather busy for the next few days, and won't have the time to look into anything outside my core areas of activity. Sorry about that. --Stemonitis 07:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

fingerstyle guitar

We were in discussion before (please look at your archives under re:merger for more info). The 'fingerstyle guitar' article has not been redirected into fingerpicking article, perhaps I should reiterate my plight to prevent any confusion- we have a redirect for 'fingerstyle' into fingerpicking however we do not have a redirect for 'fingerstyle guitar' into fingerpicking, can you help us or is it impossible?--Mikeoman 21:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for expanding the spiny water flea article

Thanks you have helped it alot, i didn't have much time to work on it, but your help was very valuable. Huzzahmaster018 21:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I was also wondering if you could give some advice to getting it to at least start class if it isn't already since i have made some changes, but im not very experianced and would appreciate help if you have any time. Huzzahmaster018 23:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

reference format

hi stemonitis,

i noticed that you reformatted the references in Trichoniscidae. i have given quite a lot of thought about what the best way is to cite sources over the last year, and came up with this (with the help of Dysmorodrepanis): pack the full quotation at the end of the article, nicely formatted, and sorted (alphabetically or, as i prefer, chronologically). add a section 'footnotes', that will contain the specific source. this way you can for example cite a book with a specific page, without having to replicate the full source all the time. i really don't like using these long ref sections inside of text, it clutters the text enormously, making it unreadable in the source, thus repelling potential authors (including me ;). and i also think that the cite template is not very nice to use, and prefer using normal wiki markup, which is much better to read in the source, and much easier to add without having to consult the template syntax. i will go on creating sources like i described, unless somebody convinces me that a different way to do it is better. i'm telling you this so that we can avoid unnecessary work. if there's a place where stuff like this is already discussed, if i have to i'll mention my point there, but i don't think it's much use. the best way i guess is to change the style where one is bothered, but when somebody else gives a good reason why he did it this way, leave it alone. there will unlikely be 'the one' style soon, and i would really like the spider/harvestman pages (and in this case, the isopod families) to stay in this style, because it really helps my workflow, and i also think it is a good way to do references for now. i'd be glad for any input from you on this :) cheers! --Sarefo 18:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

oh, another thing: i usually add empty fields to the taxobox that i think should be filled in some day, such as picture, type species etc.; two reasons: it makes it easier for future editors to include the field, without having to learn the taxobox syntax intricacies; and it shows people what's missing. is there any specific reason/policy to delete it, except for saving some bytes?

Authority for Phacellophora camtschatica

Hi Stemonitis: I've been going through some bird-related articles, fixing links to the Brant DAB page and found that the Fried egg jellyfish page (AKA Phacellophora camtschatica) refers to "Brant" as the authority for the taxonomy. However, there are no natural history-related folks on the Brant DAB page. Do you still have access to the reference you used to create the taxobox? Might it be Brandt (i.e. perhaps Johann Friedrich von Brandt) instead of Brant? Just trying to clean up these DABs!  ;) MeegsC | Talk 15:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

it's really Brandt, however no idea if it's the brandt mentioned above. changed the link to Brandt. --Sarefo 22:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Biography of living persons

I have nominated Category:Biography of living persons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Dean Wormer 02:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

A note on bird article categories

I have reverted the deletion the the Cygnus category. Such a system was attempted in (or had evolved by) 2005 but it did not work for then and it certainly won't work now, with perhaps 3 times the number of bird articles.
For example, Mute Swan goes in both categories Cygnus and Swans, whereas Coscoroba Swan goes into category Swans and in category Anserinae (monotypic genus needs no own category). Category Swans goes into category Waterfowl whereas category Anserinae goes into category Anatidae. And so on until one arrives either at the order category or at Category:Birds by common name. The order categories and the "common name" category are both accessible from Category:Birds by classification. There are a few cases where this system (2 different category hierarchies, one scientific and one vernacular) is redundant, but the advantage is that it can handle any bird article as well as ambiguities of classification.
This becomes obvious if you consider e.g. Category:Piranga. What would a common name category be? One cannot start calling the Summer Tanager a "Summer Cardinal" because it probably is a cardinal rather than a tanager for example. But one can simply classify the Piranga category in both Cardinalidae and Thraupidae as I did, and add an explanatory note. It's highly useful for Mesozoic birds too. Dysmorodrepanis 15:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I can see the sense of duplicate categories where there is doubt, or where common names for higher groups do not match with scientific taxa. However, in this case, the article swan is clear that swans are in the genus Cygnus and members of Cygnus are swans. Duplicate categories are pointless in a case like this. If the only problem is that Coscoroba coscoroba has a common name which includes "Swan" despite not being a Cygnus species, then simply leave it out of Category:Swans. Category:Crabs does not include hermit crabs, even though they have "crab" in their name (nor horseshoe crabs, porcelain crabs, etc.) --Stemonitis 15:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Elaeagnaceae

Can you confirm that there is a plant called the sandthorn? Thanks.—msh210℠ 19:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

an old chestnut

Hi. I notice that you had to revert a bot again, did you notice it was the same edit as yesterday. [1] I alerted the user, to no avail. I will leave it with you. Regards, Cygnis insignis 13:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think this must be a bot error, because it can't be deducing that translation based on existing interwiki links (since I/we have got rid of them all). If it happens again, I will certainly be having a word with Zwobot's owner. --Stemonitis 13:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ta. I just noticed, I misplaced my post ↑ ... I will categorize it next time  :) Cheers, Cygnis insignis 13:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Remote parent

You've found a gap in my vast store of knowledge! In what sense is a mountain in Kerry the parent of Lug? (Sarah777 09:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC))

The different definitions of parentage are discussed in detail at topographic prominence#Parent peak. In principle, any confusion is just a matter of scale. Just as Mullaghcleevaun is separated from any higher peak by the Wicklow Gap, so Lugnaquilla (and the whole of the Wicklow Mountains) is separated from any higher mountains by a (very shallow) saddle point in the centre of Ireland somewhere. Indeed, the fact that Lugnaquilla's relative height has been given as 838 m means that someone has found that col, and seen that it is at 87 m above sea level. By the same logic, the parent of Mont Blanc is Everest, the highest of many peaks on the other side of an extremely shallow saddle point 100 m above sea level in the lowlands of European Russia, and Snowdon is separated from the Scottish Highlands, including Ben Nevis, by the course of the Forth and Clyde Canal (reaching 47 m). Over such large scales, the concept of parentage does not make much intuitive sense, but it is logically no different from its application at smaller scales. You might be interested in looking at the list of peaks by prominence, where almost all the parentages are deduced over similarly large scales. --Stemonitis 09:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Stem, thanks for taking the time to explain. So Carrauntoohil is an orphan I see! regards (Sarah777 10:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC))

Crustacean stubs

I would like to inform you that Category:Crustacean stubs is getting way too large at over 600 articles. If you have any ideas on whether/how it should be split up, please let me know. Thanks. --Crustaceanguy 17:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I have done some sampling, and recorded the results. In my sample of crustacean stubs,

27 are copepods,

18 are amphipods,

12 are isopods,

7 are Branchiopoda,

5 are ostracods,

3 are barnacles,

1 is a cumacean and

1 is a krill.

--Crustaceanguy 18:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought it might be a good idea to provide you with my previews of proposed templates.

Template:Crustacean-stub

This crustacean-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Template:Copepod-stub

This copepod-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Template:Amphipoda-stub

This Amphipoda article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

--Crustaceanguy 00:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that 600+ really counts as "way too large", but the split seems reasonable, if someone's prepared to go to the effort of retagging them all. The new stub categories would fit in to the existing category hierarchy, and I might suggest {{amphipod-stub}} instead of {{Amphipoda-stub}} just to be slightly shorter. You should propose these at WP:WSS/P, and see what the people there say. --Stemonitis 06:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, Commons user!

Thanks to my account on Russian Wikipedia, your Image:Animalia diversity.jpg is now being used in the Russian Wikipedia. You can add it to your list on your user page at Commons.--Crustaceanguy 12:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Animalia diversity

Ant mimicry

Hello; just to let you know I've changed the rating on ant mimicry to start. The page has lots of potential, but is extremely stubbish in the lead and most sections. Please keep this in mind with future assessments. Thanks. Richard001 09:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Photo

Hi, do you think this photo shows Dacryopinax spathularia? I'd like to use it but I think that fungus usually grows on rotting wood. This photo depicts the fungus growing on mulch. Badagnani 17:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Flood of red

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Flood of red, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Flood of red is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Flood of red, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 09:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Crustacea collage

I have uploaded Image:Crustaceacollage.jpg, and I would like your opinion on whether to use it in Crustacean. Although Image:Crustacea.jpg illustrates more examples, all of those crustaceans are in the subclass Eumalacostraca. The image I uploaded has two eumalacostracans, plus a mantis shrimp, a copepod, and a branchiopod. Thank you for your opinion.--Crustaceanguy 00:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Correction: Nebalia is not in the Eumalacostraca; therefore, those species are restricted to class Malacostraca.--Crustaceanguy 01:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Erdős number‎ categories nominated for deletion

Removed cfdnotice, cfd has completed. --Kbdank71 17:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

TÉLÉTOON

Several months ago, TÉLÉTOON (Canada) was moved due to MOS issues. Since then however, another user moved it back. Just a few minutes ago I moved it back along with several other TÉLÉTOON articles, but this user moved them back within minutes. What do you suggest I do? He seems to think they should be capitalized just because that is what the network does (even though that violates MOS, hence why Fox Broadcasting Company isn't at FOX, or why TNA Impact! isn't at TNA iMPACT!). I am asking you since you did the original move (which I noticed he moved it back 2 days after you moved it in June, so this is the 3rd time in the last 4 months he has reverted the move and ignored the move request). Check out [2]. TJ Spyke 01:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

your advice appreciated

There's a rather serious problem brewing regarding edits by a fly taxonomist who has identified himself to be Andy Z. Lehrer, who has taken to using Wikipedia to make numerous outrageous personal attacks on another taxonomist, Knut Rognes. He is engaged in massive sockpuppetry (he uses a different anon IP via dial-up every time he edits, evidently), and has already forced one of the two pages he edits, Bengalia, to be edit-protected. I'd like it if you could take a look at Talk:Cluster fly for a moment (you were one of the last people to edit it prior to Lehrer's edits) - clearly this is unacceptable behavior, and maybe you have some ideas regarding how best to handle this. The number of WP policies this individual has violated within the last few days absolutely boggles the mind. I'll note that "Fragmenta Dipterologica" is a self-published source, not a peer-reviewed journal, so you can add that one to the list, as well. Thanks, Dyanega 22:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed - due to his never using the same IP twice, there are seevral similar edits scattered throughout a few other Diptera pages, in which he attacks various others among the living authorities on muscoid flies. See also Talk:Flesh-fly. I'm sorely tempted to delete the edits, since they are blatant personal attacks, but based on his behavior at Talk:Bengalia all that is likely to accomplish is prompt an edit war. Dyanega 23:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello

If you are still around, you might be interested in knowing that I've uploaded some of your articles to Veropedia, a site that hosts stable versions of quality Wikipedia articles. Your articles are both well written and well sourced. Based on your contributions, I think you'd make a great addition to our group. The article's of your's that I've uploaded so far are Jasus, Jasus lalandii, and Tristan rock lobster. If you are interested in the site, you may want to check out our FAQ and contact User:Danny or me for more information. Mr.Z-man 19:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Stemonitis - I have sent you an email concerning the article Christophe Neff. Could you please read it ! Thank you very much ! good bye Christophe.Neff 11:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikibooks Garden Book (you're a contributor!)

Hi Stemonitis. While setting up a contributor's page for the Wikibooks gardening manual, your name came up as a top contributor due to the magic of Special:Import (the book is largely based on imported Wikipedia articles). This list (or updated versions of it) will be included in print versions for attribution purposes (since there are of course no "history pages" in print versions).

I'm sending this note to see if (a) you would like your real name used rather than your username, and (b) to make sure you have an account on Wikibooks. If your username is "taken" there and there are no contributions (or if perhaps you just lost your password), please feel free to leave me a note so I can help you fix the problem (I am a b'crat).

We're working on ways to make this attribution work better in the future, so also let me know if you want to be kept up to date on that. Thanks for contributing to the plant, insect, and other articles that have been so helpful in the creation of the garden book!--SB_Johnny | ^talk 19:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Giant Millipede from Ghana

Hi - do you by any chance know what this ..thing...is called? Thats my wrist by the way!

Cheers, Excalibur (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal Promotion versus User Pages

I stumbled upon this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Gardner_%28programmer%29&action=history which it appears you have edited before...

I see it was created by the user himself, instead of creating a user page. I thought this type of self promotion was discouraged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffcutter (talk • contribs) 07:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Deacon_of_Pndapetzim

I am having some problems with this user. He vandalised List of Roman Catholic dioceses in Great Britain by blanking it and turning it into a disambiguation. He then proceeded to depopulate the entire category, as you can see from his user contributions. The category which was now emptied was then deleted. Has he had problems with this behaviour before? I saw that he came back after an extended hiatus. Benkenobi18 (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Villa Los Navegantes

Why you put "...most of the inhabitants are teachers..." in the article Villa Los Navegantes. Answer me in my talk page. Thanks. --MisterWiki (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Lyngbya majuscula

Hey Stemonitis, I was browsing this cyanobacterium article and noticed the change you made to the taxonomy. I've looked into it a bit and was wondering if this is the consensus that the Order is Oscillatoriales. I found it used on marinespecies.org and a research article, but itis.gov lists Nostacales as the Order, but the same Family as the other sources. The more sources I check the less clear it gets since each one lists differing child taxa for each Order and Family. Esoxid^t 21:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Systema Brachyurorum

• Ng, P.K.L., Guinot, D. & P.J.F. Davie (2008). Systema Brachyurorum: Part 1. An Annotated checklist of extant Brachyuran crabs of the world, Raffles Bulletin of Zoology, Supplement Series, No. 17, 286pp.

A Useful document. Lycaon (talk) 08:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Vermiform

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Vermiform, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Vermiform. Caerwine Caer’s whines 00:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Evaluation Help

I have been working on the article Hairy Dragonfly for a while. It was classified as a stub before but I would like to believe that this is no longer the case. As a fellow member of the Arthropod WikiProject, would you please evaluate this article for me? Thank you so much.Aussieluva94 (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Barnacles in lakes

Hello Stemonitis,

I was wondering if you could maybe answer a question I have about barnacles. Recently I received a fact book about the Oceans, and it devotes a whole page to barnacle facts. According to the book, barnacles are found in oceans, seas and lakes throughout the world. Does this denote they are only found in saltwater lakes and estuaries, or that they are found in freshwater lakes as well? Barnacles could possibly enter a lake/river while attached to a boat that sailed in from the ocean, though I doubt they would survive. My point is, this fact could make a useful addition to our Barnacle article. --Crustaceanguy (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Leucate

Hallo der Hexer Hallo Stemonitis Hallo Splash In a graduate class in geography (which I teach actually) my students will analyse the content of wikipedia articles concerning the geography of southern France with special focus to Leucate, Corbières and (MTE) Mediterranean type ecosystems (and botanical articles concerning mediterranean plants). Furthermore they will compare the different wikis (en,fr, de, es etc.). best regards. Christophe Neff (talk) 10:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Foreignchar

Template:Foreignchar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. _→AzaToth 22:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

New defaultsort debate

As you commented in an old disucssion here, I thought this TfD might be of interest. Carcharoth (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Categorization

Hallo! please see Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Articles with too many categories. I'm hoping I'm not mistaking in my last contributions. Thanks! Tigermighty (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)