DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between Jan 25 2005 and Oct 09 2005.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarising the section you are replying to if necessary.
Firstly, Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Grinner 10:10, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
You've been adding relative height to the infoboxes on some British hills, just at the same time as I've been trying to standardise them with the following templates: Template:Infobox british hills, Template:Infobox british hills (no image), Template:Infobox british hills double. I'd quite like to include relative hiegh in the infoboxes, but I don't have the data. DO you have RH info for most hills in Britain (Marilyns, Munros Hewitts anyway)? If so I'll add a RH line to the template. It's great to see someone else working on the hills by the way! Grinner 10:10, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
I see you have added an infobox about Bishop Wilton Wold to this page. Shouldn't it be on a separate Bishop Wilton Wold page? Also, The Yorkshire Wolds are not a Marilyn of England so I suspect the category is in the wrong place too. Paul Tracy 13:24, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
One could argue that the entire hill is the Marilyn, and not just the summit, in which case, the whole Yorkshire Wolds might count as a Marilyn, but I don't think it really matters. I'd be happy for it to be separated, but I didn't have enough material for a page, I thought. If Bishop Wilton Wold were separated off, then naturally the category would stick with it, and not with the Wolds page. -- Stemonitis 13:30, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Bit of a discussion over on Template talk:Infobox british hills (no image), you might care to comment. Grinner 16:18, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
There is a an apology for an article entitled
Spiny lobster which looks in great need of attention if you run out of hills !
Velela 23:24, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
What is your evidence that hyphenated forms such as flower-fly are the most prevalent? For instance, when one Googles "flower-fly", the first usage with a hyphen appears rather far down. When I've studied the issue before, it's seemed pretty clear that hyphenation is an archaic British usage at best, not really appropriate for scientific subjects in a 21st-century reference work. Stan 15:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you recently moved housefly to house-fly. I'm not so sure that this was a good decision; see Talk:House-fly for my reasons. Cheers, AxelBoldt 18:59, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
....is now included in Self-incompatibility_in_plants. Which came first the English primrose article or the image ? Velela 11:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
One week later, and I've only just noticed that there's an unanswered question here. How lax of me. To answer it, the article came first, and I realised I could fill the gap of the missing picture relatively easily, and then did so. My picture is timed at 10:44 (local time). Stemonitis 10:50, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hi Stemonitis - mainly to maintain at least some sort of consistency within groups (all or almost all the other Rosaceae have full caps for common names; the oaks don't at the moment, though I'm planning to harmonise them with all the rest of the Fagales (which do) sometime soon; beetles also don't at the moment and to put one in caps without working on the rest would be out of place. On the broader principle of caps, there are good reasons of consistency in having all common names capitalised (e.g. most field guides do so, whatever country you're in). It has been discussed several times on WP:TOL talk and has always been somewhat divisive but each time with a small majority in favour of capitalising all common names; all the details are in the WP:TOL talk archives if you want to dig them out. In somewhat similar vein, there is also a small majority in favour of converting all TOL entries to scientific names, but the size of the task dissuades much action from being done (I'm doing a bit here and there where there's difficulty or ambiguity over multiple common names e.g. Primula or the same common name for different things e.g. Delphinium / Consolida); I'm also thinking about moving (eventually!) all the conifers over to scientific names as an experiment to see if it works better full-scale. - MPF 09:04, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I would like to express my thanks to everybody helping in the nomination of Antarctic krill. I think 3 1/2 supports and a long long discussion are an unexpected and great outcome for a critter so remote and unknown - you should see how little and poor Antarctic krill is represented in Encarta and Britannica - this is the best reviewed and resourced general article of krill we know of - it is impossible to fullfill all wishes at the same time - this is what we did with our all product peer review stamp to qualify this stage of the article for academic exercises, especially for our dreams of a Virtual university within Wikiversity - good luck to you all Uwe Kils 21:48, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Hey, you removed Basque people from the the 'related ethnic groups' section of Welsh people, I believe the source for this claim is http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/1256894.stm -- Joolz 17:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but a single study isn't really enough to convince me. One study based on a relatively small number of individuals from a few small areas, using only the Y chromosome (which is very un-representative of the genome as a whole), cannot reveal the true complexity of the relationships among these peoples. If there were really a good ethnic link between Welsh and Basques, then there would also be linguistic evidence, and there is, despite repeated and increasingly unlikely claims to the contrary, no evidence at all of links between Basque and any other language. The article states "[I]t is still unclear whether the link is specific to the Celts and the Basques, or whether they are both simply the closest surviving relatives of the early population of Europe. What is clear is that the Neolithic Celts took women from outside their community. When the scientists looked at female genetic patterns as well, they found evidence of genetic material from northern Europe." All this is a long way from saying that the Welsh and the Basque people are closely ethnically related. In any case, Wikipedia should be consistent, and the page on the Basque people states they are not (known to be) related to any other group. This, I think, is how it should be. -- Stemonitis 11:23, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hallo Stemonitis - you do great work on the ocean critters - may I invite you to join an academic board we are proposing? see some thoughts, and maybe add to the discussion and vote, on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Virtual_University - are you from Ireland? regards Uwe Kils 17:47, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Hallo Stemonitis! thank you for helping on krill - may I ask you to help contributing on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Antarctic_krill and maybe voting if you like it - we try to get input from all over the planet, best academics, want to use the article as academic teaching content for the hatching Wikiversity - best greetings ;-) Uwe Kils 19:29, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
I think Wikipedians would like to see the A. H. Haworth article use his full given names in the title. Or perhaps they are now forgotten?
Since you are into biology, perhaps you know who the Haworth was who gave his name to Haworthia, a genus of Asphodelaceae. Lots of pics of the little critters.
-- RHaworth 08:15, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that particular code I used is buggy. It almost tried to add interwikis to Hongkong in several languages to Harry Potter and I still don't know how it happened. The code needs more user input before changing things. BTW that mistake happened because foreign wikis link incorrectly (it copied all interwikis it could find by following the ones on en: - Mgm| (talk) June 28, 2005 08:15 (UTC)
Just thought I'd congratulate your efforts in the changes to the infoboxes. Well done! Grinner June 30, 2005 11:07 (UTC)
How would I go about Wikifying the page?
j011
Would you mind taking a look at the medicine section that I added to the woodlouse article? (very short but I thought it needed to be mentioned). I can't really find much information, could you maybe add a bit? -- J011 9 July 2005 18:55 (UTC)
Is this "Psittacula eupatria (Alexandrine Parakeet)" or "Psittacula krameri manillensis (indian-ringnecked Parakeet))" ? -- Shivu § Mesg 4 Mè § 13:00, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Anything to add to the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mountains/General#From_Template_talk:Infobox_british_hills_.28no_image.29 as regrds the infoboxes we use for hill articles? Grinner 09:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I note that you have been energetic enough to remove all the commas from the British Hills. The effort is appreciated. But I note that the sorting works both with AND without commas. The only issue is consistency. I also note that you have a more complete list of British hills by height. I was probably the person that put the one in without commas by mistake. My apologies.
ThanX ¢ NevilleDNZ 12:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC) ¢
It seems that I am apologising to you again. I just invited the participant from a cited discussion to join in. Frankly the recorded vote for Category:Books by title was delete, so I probably did a stupid thing by inviting the wolf into the house.
For the record the British Hills pages are really very great. I only wish I was in the UK and could walk a few such trails.
As a concellation prize, give me a month and I can offer a bot to create these much loved "manual lists by elevation".
Sorry for the trouble caused: ¢ NevilleDNZ 11:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC) ¢
Here is the text of the msg posted to the others:
I am posting this to all the particants of the Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:Books by title discussion and debate. (Where the categories were voted for deletion).
This earlier discussion has been cited as an example as to why the category Category:Mountains by Elevation (km) (and sub cats) should be deleted.
Could you please take a look at the following CFD and vote. Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 September 1#Category:Mountains by Elevation (km) and its subcategories
A complication could be that Category: British Hills by Height seems be to liked by the actual British Hills content contributors. By contrast the category Category:Mountains by_Elevation (km) is not liked by User:RedWolf who seems to be a major Mountain page contributor.
Special note: the Ocean trenches by depth categories were added after the all of the people had voted. But frankly these have no real contributors and would probably get deleted if another vote was taken. You should specifically mention these to ensure there is no confusion in future.
ThanX ¢ NevilleDNZ 11:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC) ¢
So we can now easily do heights beyond Ben Nevis of 1344 meters. Check out:
¢ NevilleDNZ 13:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC) ¢
I doubt that "⒔44m" would be very popular on a mountain page, but as an index "⒔"on a category page it would have been tolerable. A conversion could have been done in a template, eg like template: {{locale length|5}} & {{locale length|10}}, but the "locale" would be for "catalogue index". It is all academic now anyhow. ¢ NevilleDNZ 01:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC) ¢
Hello Stemonitis! In my opinion, your
Image:Campanula beckiana.jpg shows
Campanula cespitosa. Your photo shows the typical shape of corollas of C. cespitosa which are narrowing towards mouth. Typical C. beckiana should look like
this plant.
I suppose you do your Androsace studies in Vienna? Best wishes from Vienna. --
Franz Xaver
12:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Quite right; my mistake. I wonder if there's a way of renaming images… -- Stemonitis 12:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Don't you think you overdid it there? These are proper names, so at least the first characters should be capitalized. Also, why remove the three species from the taxobox? Now anybody who wonders which species still and always are referred to as Penaeus spp. has to painfully extract them from the table. Lupo 09:18, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Many of the WikiProjects listed above have defined standards for the capitalization of common names, which should be used when discussing the groups they focus on. There is currently no common standard, so no particular system should be enforced over-all.
I know this is probably impossible, but would it be possible to add a 'Pronunciation' row in the Welsh + Scottish hills infoboxes? I for one have no idea how to pronounce Liathach, Beinn Eighe, Cnicht or a lot of others and I'm sure there are lots of people who don't. This wikipedia is supposed to provide information on hills; shouldn't we tell them how to say them as well? Probably imposs though... -- Mark J 17:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Could you explain the difference in decapode nomenclature? I can only gather that Achelata is a newer proposed name (1995), but Palinura seems to be used by most modern databases. I see that family Polychelidae isn't included. Should wikipedia change to Palinura?
Phaust 02:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't think we should use the UK mtnbox for the Northern Irish marilyns, becaus it links to the Bristh Grid Ref, not the Irish one. We should probably have a new mtn box for Island of Irlend hills. Unless you object I'll make one and change over the peaks. Grinner 09:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I have made Template:Mtnbox_Ireland, and have listed the old NI boxes on templates for deletion, as they aren't need now. Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#October_3.
Apologies, I should have left well alone. But cheers for going through and sorting them out, you're a star! Grinner 16:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)