User talk:Stemonitis/Archive06

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

This archive page covers approximately the dates between October 2 2006 and November 1 2006.

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

Field cricket

Thank-you for tweaking the taxobox :) Pendragon39 03:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Glad to be of help. It's just a shame that I couldn't find an authority for the subfamily. ITIS seems to be offline at the moment. --Stemonitis 06:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

When ITIS is offline (too often these days), you can view it with the google cache. In this case it doesn't give an author for Gryllinae. Lycaon 10:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Could it be Taxon: Subfamily Gryllinae (Bolívar, 1878) Saussure, 1893 taken from http://sn2000.taxonomy.nl/Taxonomicon/Default.aspx ? Pendragon39 18:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Weird. I don't understand how a subfamily can have a parenthetical author. But this PDF file also gives "Saussure, 1893", so I think that's probably right. --Stemonitis 09:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: taxonomic order

Hi. Re: your recent edit - I take your point that phylogenies don't have extreme branches, but pictorially represented phylogenetic trees do, albeit ones that are selected by humans using varying degrees of arbitrariness. Any thoughts on how we could put this more clearly? SP-KP 18:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, no, to be honest. I tried to think of a better way of wording it, but trying to describe how all branches can be freely rotated without altering the tree seemed a bit much for that article. I don't normally like to remove information without providing at least a suggestion of something better, but I couldn't think of anything. Perhaps one could say that taxonomic order tries to reflect the pattern of branching in one dimension or something. Is that clear to a non-specialist? Perhaps an example would be best, or at least a clarification that because it is compressing a two-dimensional tree into one dimension, it will always be to some degree arbitrary. --Stemonitis 08:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with units!

Thanks for your help with units on Lainzer Tiergarten. I really hate units! -newkai t-c 13:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I came this close [holding thumb and forefinger very close together] to changing all the occurrences of "-meter" to "-metre" before I saw your American persuasions and thought again! Unfortunately, I haven't got any photos that I could contribute, except perhaps one of the Hermesvilla; I thought I'd have more. --Stemonitis 13:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I have hundreds of photos... Maybe I'll create a Commons page too and add a dozen or so. -newkai t-c 15:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. The pictures already makes the German equivalent look bare! --Stemonitis 15:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Pet Care information for the Caribbean hermit crab

I am new to Wikipedia. Why is pet care information not permitted? Is there a different place for it? Lots of people are killing their hermit crabs through ignorance.

Jangim 12:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

There is quite a long decsription of what Wikipedia is not that you can read, including the section on "how-to" guides. By my understanding, the material you added, although inappropriate at Wikipedia, may well be welcome as a WikiBook (or section of one). I'm sure there must be an outlet for it, because it is clearly valuable information. I hope this helps; Wikipedia can certainly be confusing for new users. --Stemonitis 09:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the WikiBook suggestion!! There is a section on animal care where I can put information on hermit crabs. Thanks, too, for the help with the references in the Wikipedia article.

My only issue now is putting external links to the newest research info into the Wikipedia article. I know how, but all of the sites have at least a storefront for crab t-shirts, et.al, to support the site, so they violate the commercial site restrictions. There are some fantastic anatomy and reproduction pictures on these sites that I haven't found anywhere else on the web. I doubt that you can help me with this, but it doesn't hurt to ask. - Jangim 15:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that provided you link to the page or section with the relevant information on it (which is easy enough when referencing particular statements rather than providing general external links), there should be no problem with those websites also being commercial. For images, it is possible to link to the image directly, rather than to a page which displays it, if that's enough. I wouldn't worry too much about the commercialism; if a company's website really is the best citation for a fact, then that's just the way it is. Naturally, impartial books or scientific papers would be preferable, but they simply don't contain everything worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. The commercialism rules are more to prevent spam-linking, which happens a lot, and doesn't really apply to what you're trying to do.

It might be worth asking the owners of the websites if you could upload their pictures to Wikipedia (ideally to the Commons). I've never done this, but I believe it is sometimes fruitful. A final possibility is that you could re-draw (simpler versions of) the pictures highlighting the salient features, but that's a lot of work. --Stemonitis 18:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic!! Thanks! - Jangim 18:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Waitoreke

Hi Stemonitis, While I have no strong feelings one way or another I wonder whether placing this mythological thing in serious categories is the right way to go. There is no hard evidence whatsoever. If you look at unicorn eg it is not treated as a mammal. Just a thought... GrahamBould 19:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I suppose I could have removed the category entirely, rather than refining it, but I didn't. I have no strong opinion either way, so if you'd rather take it out of categories for real, documented animals, then that would be fine by me. --Stemonitis 10:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Charybdis

Thanks for helping me with this webpage, for instance putting urls in references, italicising and the specific taxonomy nomenclature. It is my first Wikipedia page mainly driven by the fact I really wanted to know what crab it is we eat in Hong Kong, flowery crab, and how it is related to the other edible crabs. Thanks, Stephen.

You're welcome. I'm quite impressed by the work you've put into it. Nobody expects a new user to get everything right straight away, so don't worry too much about the small things; it's more important to get the information in. The fact that you're finding references for so many statements is excellent. Keep up the good work! --Stemonitis 08:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Stuckgowan

You removed the unsourced tag. Where is the source that says there is a village called Stuckgowan?--JBellis 18:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

When the article consists of a single simple sentence, I don't think an {{unsourced}} tag really helps much. We expect stubs to be expanded, and that's when referencing is really important. If it's not a real place, then it should be speedily deleted. But in this case, it seems it does exist: see especially the 1:250,000 scale OS map (I couldn't find out how to link directly to the 1:250,000). --Stemonitis 18:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject British hills

Hi, thanks for your comment on Snowdonia - great minds and all that! In a flurry of wiki-ambition I've just created Wikipedia:WikiProject British hills and thought you might be interested in joining. Cheers, Blisco 22:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good: I'm in. I notice you've restricted it to Great Britain (i.e. England, Scotland and Wales, including their islands), which helpfully avoids the sometimes heated debate over the appropriate terminology for what I've always called the "British Isles". The only drawback is that the same editors who work on British hills are the ones who work on the Irish, Northern Irish and Manx hills, and our coverage of the island of Ireland is much more patchy that our coverage of England, Scotland and Wales. It would make geographical sense at least to cover all the archipelago in one project, but I don't know if that's possible without (inadvertently) causing offense to some people. I also think we should try to work on some notability criteria for hills. Are all Marilyns by definition notable? Munro tops? Donalds? And for peaks without listings, where do we draw the line? I know some people from other countries who find the British idea of a mountain risible, and we ought to accept that not every ring contour is interesting. --Stemonitis 08:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they're just the sort of questions I'm hoping will get discussed (I for one would rather see FA status for Ben Nevis to stubs on every single Wainwright). I've considered the GB vs British Isles issue quite carefully, and had decided that as coverage of Irish hills is so patchy to begin with, and as there seem to be virtually no Irish contributors working on them, including them in the project probably wouldn't solve much - it's difficult to coordinate interest and effort when there's so little to start with. I'm speaking from my experience with Geograph, where, with the exception of one notable user in Tyrone, coverage of Ireland is mostly restricted to British contributors on holiday. However, I certainly see your point, and if there was consensus for extending the scope I'd suggest that "WikiProject British and Irish hills" is concise enough without causing controversy. As for the Isle of Man, I don't think too many people would be offended if it was implicitly included in GB -- after all, it already is for the purpose of OS maps. --Blisco 10:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the Isle of Man issues its own 1:25,000 scale maps (with Norman Wisdom on the cover!) and is only covered by the OS at 1:50,000 and above. Anyway, there are only five Marilyns on the island, and I've already started all those articles, so coverage there is pretty complete. I take your point about Ireland, though. --Stemonitis 10:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Pico Almanzor

Thanks for your interest in this article. But I am afraid your changes are unlikely. It is unsuitable here the change of name. It is English wikipedia and English name or the name that the whole world understands should be given. Spanish name or local name should be suitable for Spanish wikipedia. If you see, the local name is also given in the article.

Giving the local name will be very strange. Do you know what Sagarmetha is? It is the local name of Mount Everest. Will it be suitable for Wikipedia? Shahgori is the local name of the second highest peak in the world: K2. But the world understands only K2. You are a student of biology, I think while studying you use English names of plants and animals and not the local names.

I have two world renowned maps about Spain: 1. National Geographic Society’s map of Spain. On it only Almanzor is written with a + sign, the symbol of peak. I have another big wall map of Europe created by world renowned map maker HC Berann. Here too only Almanzor is written with a plus sign. For locals, Pico Almanzor makes sense but for us, for the English speaking world it is unsuitable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalid Mahmood (talk • contribs)

I fully agree that where a single unambiguous English name exists, then it should be used. In the case of Pico Almanzor, this would seem to be "Almanzor" (as used by the external links), but that is a disambiguation page. The name "Almanzor peak" is improperly capitalised, and is used by nobody in English, whereas "Pico Almanzor" is sometimes used [1]. One could consider moving Almanzor to Almanzor (disambiguation) and then Pico Almanzor to Almanzor, but that wouldn't seem to improve matters much. Sometimes one has to accept that there is no English name for something, whether it be a foreign place name or a little-known animal. In those cases, we resort to the next best thing, which is the local name of a place, or the scientific name of an organism. Almanzor peak is a neologism used only by non-native speakers of English (who presumably assume, falsely, that English speakers cannot cope with a single word outside their own language), and is as such unsuitable for Wikipedia. --Stemonitis 08:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the message.

Ok.

It would be better to change the headline to "Almanzor" as it is used on Atlases instead of Pico Almanzor as only Spanish understood it and they have given this title in Spanish Wikipedia. Yes I also thought Almanzor peak not proper later ( You can change it to Peak too). I hope you will change it. In Urdu Atlases too only Almanzor is given and not Pico Almanzor.

Thanks.

Stemonitis: You have not given any international source to prove that Pico Almanzor is used on maps?

I can many but I thought National Geographic and Berann are enough and trustworthy, but I think you dont know about these authentic sources.

YOU WROTE >>>>Your map with a "+" symbol uses the name "Almanzor"; even if the "+" signifies a peak, it is not part of the name, but merely a cartographical symbol.

Gentelman it is not my map only that have "+" sign all maps have, and "+" sign 'signifies' a peak. Well what is the need of writing a full word 'peak' when mere "+" sign is enough.

Well I am waiting for the use of word Pico Almanzor on a map on an International Atlas !!!!!! I hope you will provide soon. Otherise I have the right to ask the Wikipedia authorities that I am being teased. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Khalid Mahmood (talk • contribs) 13:06, Oct 28, 2006 (UTC).

You misunderstand. I wasn't suggesting that only your maps use the "+" symbol. The choice of symbol is irrelevant. My point is that marking a peak with a "+" symbol is in no way an indication that the extra work "Peak" is to be added to a name. If Snowdon were marked with a "+", it would still be "Snowdon", not "Snowdon Peak" or "Mount Snowdon" or some such nonsense. The "+" is a cartographical symbol, and not a part of the name. Thus, "Almanzor Peak" appears nowhere on the map (as far as I can tell from your comments), merely "Almanzor", with a symbol marking its location.

Do you accept ViaMichelin as an "International Atlas"? There, the name "Pico Almanzor" is used.

In this case, we may use other sources than maps, anyway, and many of these use "Pico Almanzor". I don't understand why you would object so strongly to the name "Pico Almanzor"; you are surely not suggesting that every translatable toponym be changed to an English-language equivalent? That would directly contravene Wikipedia's policy of using the name as commonly used by a majority of (reliable) sources. Thus, Nanga Parbat is used, even though the name can be translated as "naked mountain". No-one calls the mountain "naked mountain"; everyone calls it "Nanga Parbat" and that is the name used on Wikipedia. If you want any further clarification on Wikipedia's policies and practices, please feel free to ask, and I'll do my best to answer. --Stemonitis 13:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I think ViaMichelin is tyre related company and map making is not their real business. I was expecting some authentic source as I have given.

Well I again I emphasize Pico Almanzor is Spanish and suitable for Spanish wikipedia only and there is such an article with this name on Spanish Wikipedia. For us it is not making sense.

What you will say about Mount Pico in Portugal.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pico.

I hope you should also correct it and I will offer you more. But it is not good practice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalid Mahmood (talk • contribs) 16:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I must assume that you are not a native speaker of English; I am having trouble understanding exactly what you mean in some of your sentences.

"For us it is not making sense" — why not? You have provided no reason why an article cannot have the same name in different languages. Mont Blanc is Mont Blanc in French, Mont Blanc in German, Mont Blanc in Estonian, Mont Blanc in Indonesian, etc. etc. etc. Just because the Spanish article is titled "Pico Almanzor, that does not mean that the English article cannot be called Pico Almanzor. Indeed, if that is the commonest name used in English, then the English-langauge article should be called "Pico Almanzor".

Michelin have been making maps for decades, and are one of the best-selling cartographical companies world-wide.

Mount Pico seems to be a poor split from the article "Pico Island"; Pico Island contains more information about the mountain, and refers to it exclusively as "Ponta do Pico (Pico Alto)". It is unclear to me why the article Mount Pico exists at all, and it should probably be merged back into "Pico Island". In my experience, the mountain is always referred to simply as "Pico", regardless of the language in use (and I've heard it in more than one, none of which were Portuguese).

"It is not good practice" — what isn't? And why? I don't understand. --Stemonitis 15:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Vikki Blows

I appreciate you cleaning up the article for Vikki Blows a bit. I'd just like to point out though that you took out the italics for the title of The Sun newspaper. Newspaper titles are supposed to be in italics. Thanks for adding the Brit. spelling and such though! Dismas|^(talk) 18:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I will gladly change US spellings to the correct, er, I mean, British ones. The problem with the italics was that the apostrophe ("The Sun's") was interfering with the ''-markup, but I see you've solved that; I couldn't be bothered spending too much time on it. --Stemonitis 18:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Erich Mühsam

[Initial remarks copied from User talk:ExplorerCDT]

After you reverted my edits to Erich Mühsam [2], I noticed that you've made this mistake before[3]. According to WP:CAT, accents (including umlauts) should be removed from names when sorting articles in categories. Furthermore, a consensus has been reached [4] for sorting "ü" as "u" and not "ue"; this has the advantages of being intuitive for people with little knowledge of German, and of being consistent with the practices followed by encyclopaedias in both English and German. Please do not continue to restore umlauts to category sort keys. It is not "an ignorant mispelling" [sic]; I am fully aware of umlauts and will insist on including them where they belong. The text after the pipe symbol after "[[Category:…" is never seen, and only serves to put the article in the correct place in a category listing. Yes, "Muhsam" would be a misspelling, but sorting "Mühsam" after "My" would be just as bad. --Stemonitis 15:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this consensus as it is perpetuating something completely incorrect. This is not the habit of credible German encyclopedias, and is wholly inconsistent with the recent Rechtschreibreform (with which I also disagree). Perpetuating this error adds an aura of wounded credibility to Wikipedia. If it were a proper transliteration (ü to ue), I'd have no objection. I'd bet the 77% of Germans consider the Rechtschreibreform not to be sensible would consider your intentionally incorrect orthography and a rather shadily-arranged consensus on massacring the umlaut (three or four people is not sufficiently overwhelming to be called a consensus) to be likewise.—ExplorerCDT 16:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I still think you've misunderstood this. No-one is suggesting we spell the name "Erich Muhsam" (although that is listed in the article as an alternative, I see). This is entirely about indexing. I'm sure the vast majority of German speakers would not want to see ä, ö, ü and ß consistently following z in the alphabet. That is what your edits produce, and that runs entirely against established practice (I think I cited the Brockhaus in the aforementioned discussion, which is a fairly credible encyclopædia, I should think). The recent Rechtschreibreform, as contentious as it may be, is irrelevant here. No-one wants to massacre the umlaut. In fact, by ensuring correct sorting in categories, we do away with one of the arguments that the opponents of "foreign" accented characters use to try and do away with them completely on the English Wikipedia (see today's debate at WT:GSWN). Your suggestion that I am trying to massacre the umlaut shows that you don't know my style of editing very well. My user page says "I believe in the preservation of 'foreign' accents and characters when writing in English" and I mean it. Your edits are, on the other hand, likely to work against that aim. --Stemonitis 16:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• No matter what you say, there's one fact that will remain: you are perpetuating incorrectness. That's worse than anything I could ever muster. —ExplorerCDT 16:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. I am propagating a sensible system of indexing, as used by all major reference works (telephone books in Germany do it differently, but they're not really reference books). There is no incorrectness in that. At the risk of seeming impertinent, I might suggest you read about German orthography, which discusses the issue of indexing. --Stemonitis 16:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Sensible...that's debatable. Incorrect is not sensible. Absent that, it's still incorrect. Umlauted u's aren't u's. Don't tell me to go off and read something because we can take it for granted I've read more than you on the subject.—ExplorerCDT 16:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Besides, if you read the article you're quoting, you'd see to starkly obvious sentences...(1)Umlaut vowels (ä, ö, ü) can be circumscribed with ae, oe, and ue if the umlauts are not available on the keyboard used. Nothing I might add about writing them as a, o, or u. (2) Unfortunately there is still no general agreement exactly where these Umlauts occur in the sorting sequence. So much for you being shocked at being pointed for perpetuating incorrect orthography, and for your petty consensus of four measly people. —ExplorerCDT 16:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Quite how you presume to know what I have or have not read, I do not know, but that's another issue. I shall repeat, since it seems to be necessary. Rules about spelling (including circumscription in the event of certain characters being unavailable, which is not the case here) are entirely separate from issues of indexing. The section on indexing states that dictionaries, but not telephone books, sort umlauted letters as if they were unaccented. Wikipedia is almost certain to follow the examples of other leading encyclopædias, and they all sort ä as a, and so on. No-one, neither lexicographers nor telephone companies nor anyone else, sorts ä after z. No index would have "Mühsam, Erich" after "Muspratt, Max" (which is what your revert did to Category:1934 deaths). You are entitled to hold the opinion that we should sort ä as ae, but your actions do not reflect that opinion. All I ask is that you follow the current consensus, such as it is, or work on establishing a new consensus for future changes, rather than undoing the well-meant work of others. --Stemonitis 16:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Four people is not a consensus. Find 20 who largely agree with your position, and I'll support it. I may work for a new consensus, one that is actually correct. Well-meaning or not, it's still incorrect...snd that is unacceptable. —ExplorerCDT 16:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Four people is a consensus if those are all the people who wanted to cast a vote. There is no quorum at Wikipedia, so four people can be, and in this case is, a consensus. I have still seen no evidence from your side that my/our method is incorrect. --Stemonitis 07:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Charities in Vienna

Herr Stemonitis ,wieso denken Sie,dass Charities nicht wichtig für Wien sind? Österreich hat eine vielzahl von Hilfsorganisationen die auch genannt werden sollten. Viele Menschen wollen sich mit sicherheit über österreichische Hilfsorganisationen informieren. Ich warte auf Ihre Antwort, danke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.125.54 (talk • contribs)

Es ist nicht dass diese Organisationen nicht wichtig sind. Es ist nur so, dass sie nicht das sind, was Wien berühmt und wichtig macht; sie sind nicht das wovon mann denkt wenn man das Wort "Wien" hört. Wenn Wien besonders reich an karitativen Organisationen wäre, dann sollte diese Wahrheit in Vienna vielleicht erwähnt werden. Eine Reihe von externen Linken ist aber nicht sehr nützlich, und Wikipedia ist nicht ein sogenanntes "link farm" (oder soll nicht so sein, zumindest). Es muss mindestens einen Prosa-Absatz geben um so viele externe Linken zu rechtfertigen. Ich kann mir gut vorstellen, dass ein Artikel wie Austrian charities oder Charitable organisations in Vienna von Ihren Nachträgen profitieren könnte. Noch besser, da Austrian charities bei uns fehlt, können Sie ein solches Artikel schreiben. Das wäre wirklich super. Wenn Sie weitere Fragen haben, stehe ich Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. --Stemonitis 12:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Herr Stemonitis, Danke für Ihre Information. Ich werde einen kleinen Absatz schreiben und dann ein paar Links dazu aufzählen so wie Sie es empfohlen haben.Schönen Tag noch.

ji graziausia is visu ir patraukliausia =D******

"soild" => "solid"

For your information, CmdrObot changed "soild" to "solid" [5], when it should have been "soils". --Stemonitis 12:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I guess I should have proofed a bit more carefully. Cheers, CmdrObot 21:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. I thought you might want to know for refining the bot. --Stemonitis 21:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

R to scientific name

Hello,

'Tis me, the user formerly known as Snottygobble. I was wondering when the opportunity would present for me to engage with you on a more constructive basis than I did last time. And lo! it has arrived.

{{R to scientific name}} automatically places articles into Category:Printworthy redirects. I've been using this template, and I've found that some of my redirects aren't really printworthy. For example, article Banksia integrifolia subsp. compar really ought to have redirects from Banksia integrifolia subsp compar (i.e. no full stop) and Banksia integrifolia compar (i.e. incorrect application of the zoological trinomial convention to a plant). In both cases it is beyond dispute that these are redirects to a scientific name, but I don't think either are printworthy. What are your thoughts on this? Should I restrict use of the template to redirects from a common name to a scientific name, or should the template be changed to stop automatically tagging articles into Category:Printworthy redirects? Hesperian 11:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. Yes, how nice to be able to work together constructively! However, I think it's all a bit beyond me. I have never really thought about the printworthiness of redirects to scientific names (and I bet I'm not alone!). Am I right in assuming that a redirect is printworthy if it's an acceptable alternative form (not mis-spelt or porrly punctuated, etc.)? In that case, "Ashby's Banksia" is, but "Banksia integrifolia subsp compar" isn't, because, as you say, it's missing the punctuation. So, if not all redirects to scientific names are necessarily printworthy, they probably shouldn't all be marked as such.

I have found that it is possible to mark redirects in two ways at once, so Banksia integrifolia subsp compar could read:

#REDIRECT [[Banksia integrifolia subsp. compar]] {{R to scientific name}}<br>{{R from misspelling}}

The problem would then be that we end up with either redirects marked as both printworthy and unprintworthy, or with redirects that are neither printworthy nor unprintworthy. To be honest, I've no idea what the best solution might be, unless we fork the template, having one for printworthy redirects to scientific names and one for unprintworthy redirects to scientific names, but I don't even want to think about that. So, sorry I can't be of much help; it's a tricky one. --Stemonitis 12:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Your original version of the template contains an invisible comment after the printworthy category that says "This is because, IMHO, this type of redirect would be useful in a paper Wikipedia." That about sums it up for me. A paper encyclopaedia ought to contain an entry like

White Mountain Banksia, see Banksia integrifolia subsp. monticola.

But it would just be embarrassing to include an entry like

Banskia integrifolia subsp. monticola, see Banksia integrifolia subsp. monticola.

Hence the distinction between printworthy and unprintworthy. A related issue is whether Feather leaved banksia, Feather-leaved banksia, Feather-leaved Banksia, Feather-Leaved Banksia and Feather Leaved Banksia, all individually printworthy, should be considered mutually printworthy, or whether only one should be "blessed" with printworthiness.

Thanks for your response; I'll have a think about how to take this forward.

Hesperian 12:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear, did I say that? I don't remember that. The usage of the template has definitely expanded beyond what I'd first envisaged, now including medical conditions, chemical compounds, astronomical objects, etc. I had only thought of it as a reciprocal form of {{R from scientific name}}, having been miffed that the two weren't made at the same time.

My opinion would be that of those five, only "Feather-leaved Banksia" would be printworthy, but that's only an opinion. (Ideally, "feather-leaved Banksia", with italics, but that's not possible at the moment.)

Good luck with the deliberations! --Stemonitis 12:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess you didn't say that, which is why you don't remember it. That text was already in the "from" template; you copy-pasted it, then edited it into a "to" template, thus taking apparent authorship of the comment. Thanks. Hesperian 13:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Tinto Hill

[Initial message copied from User talk:Spellmaster]

[6] — this doesn't seem to have fixed any typos. --Stemonitis 14:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No indeed, I should have used a better edit summary. AWB picks up all sorts of formatting errors as in the case you pointed out. Thanks for that. --Guinnog 14:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC) (aka Spellmaster)

Perhaps more importantly, edits like that shouldn't be made. It doesn't really matter where the stub tag goes in the article; as long as it's somewhere near the end, it's OK. Visually, it's immaterial whether it's before or after the categories. The problem is that every edit is a strain on the servers (even this one), and so such minor changes are frowned upon. --Stemonitis 14:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I see your point; I hadn't realised that moving a stub tag didn't affect the appearance of the page and is specifically listed as one not to do. Thanks for your useful criticism, I've learned something. --Guinnog 14:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)