User talk:KDS4444

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Hello, KDS4444. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Earthworm head[edit]

Earthworm head.svg
An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status
Your image, File:Earthworm head.svg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust The Homunculus 09:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Wik-Ed Women Session #5[edit]

Wik-Ed Women Session #5
We Can Edit.jpg

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

I would like to personally invite you to the March edition of the Wik-Ed Women meetup, which will take place on March 15, from 6-10 in the evening. It will occur at Los Angeles Contemporary Archive, 2245 E Washington Blvd, Los Angeles, California 90021 (downtown LA -- map). The building has a pink top with old signage for American Accessories, Inc. dba Princess Accessories (Photos [PDF]). There is on-site parking in the back, which also has an entrance. If you cannot attend in person, you are more than willing to work remotely, as we appreciate all help that you can provide. Finally, here is a link to the Facebook event, in case you want to invite friends, as we are always looking for new editors to help expand coverage of women on Wikipedia!

I hope to see you there! Cosmicphantom (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Join our Facebook group here! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

Thing is, I'm not a chick... KDS4444Talk 23:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Replied to your ~month old comment on my talk page[edit]

Just thought I'd leave a note here since you're probably not watching it. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 12:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason: Sorry, you are right, I was not watching it. I can see your point, of course, and in any case the article was not deleted, though I can't shake the feeling that the word should still probably link to the Wiktionary entry on the stuff... Sometimes I wonder what words WOULD be good for Wiktionary instead of Wikipedia, and you know what? There ain't much! I've also never seen a deletion nomination succeed that was based on the WP:NOTADICTIONARY policy. So be it. Thanks for contacting me! KDS4444Talk 05:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Susan Hauptman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wayne State (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Preston City Wrestling[edit]

Is there a reason you didn't AfD the other events at this page? None of them seem to have significant independent coverage. I thought about adding them to the tag team discussion, but I didn't want to mess up your nomination.Mdtemp (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me, Mdtemp. Nope, there is no reason I didn't AfD the others— and it looks like all of them aught to go. I get the idea that someone thought it would be fun to create a series of connected Wikipedia article pages on this subject generally, and I only caught one of them during a new-pages patrol, but that doesn't mean they aren't all collectively non-notable. KDS4444Talk 22:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I also noticed your eraser barnstar. Congratulations on that. I, too, have deletionist tendencies, and it has made me few friends, though I consider the work necessary and important (oh, the vitriol that has been flung...). I've stopped taking on the more challenging cases only because I am tired of the accusations of incompetence that are so easily leveled at one who nominates something— anything— for deletion (never mind the eight years and 12,000 edits). And I still feel Wikipedia is slowly inflating with tripe! KDS4444Talk 23:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


Thank you for checking the newly created OpenAMP page and pointing the lack of citation and reference. This has been fixed, if you could review again and comment on what else can be done to improve, it would be great, and so we can close the issue and warning on the page. User:Uglybear -- 18:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Uglybear: I've had a look at the revised article— it still has some pretty significant problems that I am hoping you can fix. One of these is that the second reference doesn't even appear to exist as a page (when I click on it, it opens and then closes something and drops me back on Wikipedia). Pages from a tutorial of use are also not suitable as references. What the article needs is evidence of its subject having been discussed in multiple reliable independent secondary sources (books, newspapers, magazines, etc. not directly related to OpenAMP). If you can find these and insert them, they will quickly bring the deletion discussion to a close. KDS4444Talk 20:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Samiran Barua Ahi Ase[edit]

The page "Samiran Barua Ahi Ase" refers to an important Assamese movie dealing with the political conditions of the state of Assam during the turbulant decade of 1990. It was officially selected in the Kolkata International film festival, 2012. Madhuhojai (talk) 09:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The film "Borosi" is an suspense Assamese film released in 2014, was critically acclaimed by critics and is a future reference for students of Indian Cinema. Madhuhojai (talk) 09:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Didier Cahen[edit]

Hello KDS4444. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Didier Cahen, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims importance/significance of the subject. Thank you. Sam Sailor Talk! 00:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, now that it has citations I am no longer concerned, but that you for notifying me, I always appreciate that! KDS4444 (talk) 07:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it has 1 more citation, but citations are entirely irrelevant, so why do you say that? What made you tag Didier Cahen with {{db-person}}? Sam Sailor Talk! 11:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

The original article included no reference to the claim of being a member of the knighthood order. I also saw a list of poems (mostly irrelevant), a bibliography (unnecessary and irrelevant), a list of journal articles (also irrelevant) and a citation to evidence that he was once the director of student life somewhere (which is far from evidence of notability). Honestly, I am still not very convinced that he is notable, and the article as it stands still barely seems to qualify him (and maybe even so does not). Do you think it is worth pursuing a full nomination for deletion? I could probably be convinced to agree with you. KDS4444 (talk) 00:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

As I said, "citations are entirely irrelevant". And notability also has nothing to do with speedy.

Copying from Common A7 mistakes:

The Wording
The big mistakes

The following criteria are often, mistakenly, used when applying A7:

"Subject is not notable"
A7 is not about notability. The wording clearly states that the standard for A7 is lower than that, using "important or significant" instead.
"No sources" / "No references"
A7 is not about whether the indications of "importance or significance" can be verified. An article does not have to have inline citations or sources, let alone reliable sources to fail A7. Those are concerns for an articles for deletion discussion.


Do I want to pursue an AfD? Nope. I did my WP:BEFORE on subject. Did this help? Sam Sailor Talk! 20:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, it has all helped very much. I now feel good about you and about the way you went about handling each of these issues. You treated me respectfully, acknowledged the possibility that I might have erred without attempting to belittle my efforts, and showed appreciation for the difficulty any editor faces when considering nominating an article for deletion. I am grateful for all of that. Thank you very much. I look forward to interacting with you again often in the future. I am sure you feel the same. I have withdrawn my nomination in light of your polite and thorough review of it. No doubts are left now. That was all anyone could ever hope for. I do keep forgetting that citations are entirely irrelevant. Must write that down somewhere so I can look at it often. Citations are irrelevant... Citations are irrelevant... Wikipedia is not about citations to reliable, independent, secondary sources... Irrelevant. Much thanks for that. KDS4444 (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Your nomination of Waffen-SS im Einsatz for deletion[edit]

I have edited Waffen-SS im Einsatz, an article you have nominated for deletion, and I believe it should be kept. Please revisit the article and review it again. Also please consider if all mandatory steps of WP:BEFORE have been performed. Should you thereafter wish to WP:WITHDRAW your nomination, you may add * {{Withdraw}}. ~~~~ to the corresponding page at AfD. Regards, Sam Sailor Talk! 21:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC) (please WP:PING when replying)


I replied to your email. Zaereth (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For this amazing reply which strikes the right balance between educating someone new to Wikipedia, being honest with the challenges of article creation, and offering to collaborate. You're a great OTRS agent!  : ) I JethroBT drop me a line 21:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @I JethroBT: Aw, shucks! <blushes>.... Which article was this in regards to, if I may ask?? KDS4444 (talk) 11:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC) Trout me for failure to pay attention. Susan Hauptman. The article now exists. Thank you for the barnstar! KDS4444 (talk) 06:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Heaven (Inna song)[edit]

Please stop redirecting the article above to Inna discography. Since it was redirected, I put a lot of work into this, expanding it drastically. As of now, it fully meets the Stand-alone-criteria, incorporating a critical reception, composition, music video, background and even charts section. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Cartoon network freak: I can see that you put a lot of work into this article, and please don't view my converting of it into a redirect as a commentary on your effort or your intentions. The problem is that we had a Request for Commentary on the talk page of the article, and the outcome of that discussion was to turn the article into a redirect. That was a community consensus decision, and that is more important than any individual editor's efforts, however substantial, to create or maintain a given article. It doesn't matter, in the end, how much effort gets made, all that matters is whether or not the subject is notable. I have not had a new look at the article, and perhaps you have added more material that demonstrates the song's real-world notability. But at the time of the closure of the RfC, that had not been the case, and I was not the only editor to attempt to subsequently apply the outcome of that RfC to the article by turning it into a redirect. I understand that this means you feel your efforts there were being erased, and that this made you feel very frustrated. I am sorry about that. Neither your opinion nor mine really matters, though, and when the community has looked at an issue like this and reached a conclusion, it is not usually appropriate to ignore that decision and act as though it had not been reached, even if acquiescing to it seems like a bitter pill. Unless I am misreading something or missed a discussion somewhere, it looked to me like that was what you had done. Am I wrong? Please let me know if so. Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Some baklava for you![edit]

Baklava - Turkish special, 80-ply.JPEG thanks KDS for your informative content. You seem to have gained a lot of experiences editing and creating wiki articles. I am new to editing in Wikipedia so can you help me sort out some issues regarding article creation? Birandra234 (talk) 02:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
How nice to get your message. I would like nothing more. Tell me something about your editing experiences and your interests in article creation— I would be glad to mentor you on the process in any way possible. Will be waiting to hear from you! KDS4444 (talk) 05:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Reply: update[edit]

It's good to hear from you dear KDS. I need to know what could be the reason for the deletion time stamp on the article page of 'gen inertia'? Since I have put in a lot of effort writing up the article from the original content, I'm surprised if I may have missed anything (formatting error?), or if the article really meets Wikipedia's standard. The usage of this term is new (but not varied), but could have academic significances, since not all new terms may not be classified as neologism. I have seen someone link my article to a related article created very recently: knowledge inertia which bears similar resemblance to the one that describes gen inertia. If you have time to read and take pleasure in explaining the reasons behind the notice for deletion, I would really appreciate that. Thanks for your support. Birandra234 (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

First, I need to express some confusion: I read the article's talk page where your username appears expressing doubts as to the terms notability. I can see you are also the article's creator. What's the story?? Let's consider that my first concern. Second, the article still has a number of cues that it may not be notable: the term is capitalized wherever it appears despite the fact that it is not a proper noun; the citations include several to the same author who seems to have coined the term (making them non-independent sources) and other sources that do not mention the term at all but are merely "like" it (these therefore do not support any notability claim). These are the kinds of errors often made by new editors who do not fully understand Wikipedia's standards for inclusion (I have made them myself!). The article may be retained despite these things, but that doesn't mean it will ever be considered a good article. If the term really is notable, then the article needs references to multiple published reliable independent sources that discuss the term in some kind of depth and which are not written by the person who coined the term. New terms often have not had the time to circulate and achieve the notability they require for inclusion. Wikipedia is not a venue for new ideas, new concepts, new constructs, it seeks to cover those which have made the rounds already and been certified as relevant and notable. I am not sure this term has yet made those rounds. Can I ask what your own interest is in this term? Where did you discover it and why did you want to create this article about it? How are you connected to it? Lastly, there is no need to create new subject headings for your responses to messages on a talk page like mine. Just indent your response by adding another colon and put it right below what I have written here (that is, place two colons to place two tab indents before the first word of your response, and when I respond to that I will place three colons before my first word, etc.). No new heading is necessary. Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
@Birandra234: What happened to you? KDS4444 (talk) 05:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@KDS4444: So sorry for my late response. Ah... there I see you have some confusions. Let me be clear with that. I have no specific interest in this topic, but I came across this term while searching for another term- 'workforce learning' (it doesn't appear in Wikipedia either, but there's a general interest Journal dedicated to this term) in the database. However, following my search, this term propped up which prompted me to find the source of this new term. Since this is a new term, I have had no idea what it actually meant. Anyway, after a thorough search in Google, I was redirected to Google scholar where this new term seems to have appeared in a journal. I thought I would better propose an article on workforce learning, but on second thought, this term appeared to be more concise (and novel!) so I took the pain to write up an article on gen inertia. But now it seems that the article has been deleted and my effort gone ashtray. Anyway, thanks for your kind reply. Birandra234 (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Birandra234: Please don't let this discourage you! Wikipedia needs editors, and too often editors begin by biting off more than they can chew, having that work deleted, feeling discouraged, and never contributing again. I don't want to see that happen here. Not every term you come across warrants a Wikipedia article, but there are still many, many terms (ideas, places, events, people, etc.) that do and which DO warrant articles! If you want some help with this in the future, there is a place where you can get help from other editors with new article creation. There they will have a look at your citations and tell you if they think it will "fly", and will be able to make suggestions for improvement before you publish it. This can help save you the effort and deflation of writing a whole article and having it deleted. I believe the group is located here: WP:Articles for creation. Consider checking them out! KDS4444 (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

re {{Afd-notice}} history[edit]

Re {{Afd-notice}}, there was an WP:RFC a while back about changing the icon. A number of people felt that a prominent warning icon rather than a more low-key information icon was called for, since something important was going to happen to their article and we wanted to make sure they sat up and noticed. I didn't agree with that, but it was split about 50-50 so the existing status was retained. It's in the talk page history. It was some years ago and new discussion would be appropriate, if you want. I assume that a wide-ranging discussion, probably an RfC, would likewise be indicated for any significant changes to the text of such a widely-used template. Herostratus (talk) 02:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I didn't catch the discussion on the talk page regarding the icon, I just figured the matter had not been discussed and that I would fix what (to me) looked broken. Perhaps an RfC is indeed in order— and maybe we should consider an altogether different icon of some kind! (I have some skills in this area). I will have to see what I have time to look into doing. Thank you for the notification. KDS4444 (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Well sure. The current icon would not be used in most professionally-designed material for this kind of warning I don't think, and its use in this way tends to violate generally accepted standards for warnings, and is identical to the icon used for "you have been behaving very badly and will soon be blocked" which one would have to question. All this is on the talk page.
But this doesn't matter since it's a political question rather than a question of just information design. A lot of editors (at least in the previous discussion) want the icon to REALLY REALLY get your attention. They have a point (not a point I much agree with, but a reasonable point). So any replacement has to address that, probably. Herostratus (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 31[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Roberval balance, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Fr and Fulcrum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Van der Hoeven's organ, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lamella (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Speedy declined - Mivar-based approach[edit]

I have declined this speedy because I don't see evidence that it is the article author's own invention; also, there are (now) some references, and the Russian source article has more. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@JohnCD: Fair enough, and thank you for the notification. KDS4444 (talk) 10:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Tom Wolfe's "Kingdom of Speech"[edit]

Hi its Geoffrey1912,

Your comments about the above wiki entry are valid. However I would ask you to give the page a reprieve for the following reasons:

1) Most of Tom Wolfe's books end up with wiki pages due to his fame and influence. This book has already provoked a flurry of comments among professional linguists. Considering its controversial subject, it can only provide many more reviews and commentaries in newspapers and journals. The Chronicle of Higher Education are presently preparing an article on the book with comments by Noam Chomsky himself for example.

2) The mere blog posts that are referenced include comments by some of the world's top academic linguists eg Mark Liberman, Daniel Everett, Norbert Hornstein and others.

3) The book also attacks Darwin. So there are likely to be reviews/commentaries from many other scientists also.

3) Most other Tom Wolfe books have their own wiki pages not least of all because of his books attract large numbers of reviews and commentary.


Geofrey1912 (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Geofrey1912: I've had another look at the deletion discussion, and have withdrawn my nomination. Thank you for contacting me like this— it was the right thing to do, and allowed me the opportunity to reconsider my initial choice, which I always like! KDS4444 (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


I declined your speedy on Lewis Packard. He clearly meets the notability criterion WP:PROF, by having held a named chair at a university.

And even if he hadn't ,the rest of his career indicates some importance. Some plausible importance is enoguhto pass speedy A7,which is deliberately set at a much lower bar than actual notability.

You might want to review WP:CSD DGG ( talk ) 21:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I had initially placed a BLPPROD on the article as it lacked any citations, but then realized he was not a "LP" so the PROD wouldn't fit. I then looked for another deletion category and settled on A7. I had not noticed the named chair, however, and if I had I wouldn't have nominated it for deletion at all. I am pretty familiar with the CDS criteria, though thank you for encouraging me to review them (actually, can I gently encourage you not to encourage other editors with relatively long edit histories to review basic policy pages like CSD? Because even if you mean it sincerely, which I assume you did, it comes off as more than a little insulting— kind of like, "I know you are an adult, but you may want to review the letters of the alphabet because you must be retarded or something". I am familiar with CSD. I've been doing CSD for awhile now. I made a mistake by failing to notice the named chair, which I know full well is a criterion for the professor test. I don't need to review CSD, I just need to be more careful in the future because sometimes I make mistakes and I am grateful to you for catching this one— please don't insult that effort by suggesting I review the alphabet, okay? It tends to make people feel angry and like their efforts aren't wanted, and I don't think that was what you were aiming to do when you made the suggestion, because there is no other way to take it than personally, and I see people do it all the time on Wikipedia and it's unnecessarily rude, along with virtually every use of the word "clearly," which is a word I am coming to loathe. Yes? Thanks, DGG!). KDS4444 (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bridge (dentistry), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pontic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited SAE 316L stainless steel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SAE (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I added the Sail-plan gallery[edit]

Sail-plan#Types_of_ships ... Sorry it took so long! Siznax (talk) 19:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@Siznax: I love you more than you can possibly know. KDS4444 (talk) 06:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Pearl necklace (sexuality)[edit]

Please stop using deceptive edit summaries. The image is not superfluous, nor has there been a recent discussion -- let alone consensus -- about removing it. And the principle of least astonishment! Why would a person looking at an article about a pearl necklace be surprised to see a picture of ... a pearl necklace?!? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: Answering out of order: 1.) Because "pearl necklace" is being used in this context as a euphemism. If I went to a jeweler's shop and asked to see a pearl necklace, what do you think I would see? But this is beside the point entirely. 2.) When there are two images of the same thing in the lead of an article, one of them is "superfluous" by definition. 3.) There is a good paragraph in the FAQ section of the talk page of the article on autofellatio which summarizes the point: unless there is some meaningful contrast or juxtaposition created by the second image, then there is no reason for including it. We already have a very good illustration of this act for the article, and the photograph which you have added back twice does nothing to improve the article nor does it provide any particular contrast to the existing diagram (unless you would perhaps like to argue that it somehow does?). WP:NOT CENSORED does not apply. Can I ask why do you insist on including it? KDS4444 (talk) 05:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
(If you like, we can have an RfC on the matter and see what the community thinks, though I suspect this will end up being rather a waste of time. I am thinking of Wikipedia:Offensive material though I do not find the image personally offensive, I just find it unnecessary and a bit vulgar, especially for the lead section. KDS4444 (talk) 05:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC))
1) The article's title is not Pearl necklace, it is Pearl necklace (sexuality). Nobody lands there looking for an article of jewelry.
2) There were not "two images of the same thing" in the article. There was one picture of a pearl necklace and a picture of mammary intercourse. Only in your imagination was the image of the pearl necklace superfluous to the off-topic image.
3) You're mistaken. See 2.
4) Next time you wish to test the community's consensus, please make use of Talk:Pearl necklace (sexuality).
5) The point is moot because a third editor has removed the off-topic image, leaving the one you tried twice to censor. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
@Malik Shabazz:You mistake me utterly. If another editor decides that the photograph is somehow better than the illustration, then that's fine with me. But we didn't need two such pictures, and "censoring" was far from what I was doing. Please do not cast aspersions like that. They aren't nice, and in this instance in particular, were unwarranted. I am here to build an encyclopedia, not censor it, and seeing you misrepresent me that way doesn't help. Ok? Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 02:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Cobras on the rise![edit]

@JonRichfield: let the business proceed! I look forward to seeing what we can accomplish, and it would be so awesome to fit it into a Featured Article someday soon! I, too, am strapped for time (like, when am I not?) and am actually in the midst of trying to move from one home to another (which is really, really complicated sometimes, this time, anyway) but I promise to do my best to check in here with you regularly and help keep this project moving forward by contributing and revising and applying my own set of skills to the article in question before us. For the common good. And, of course, for the accolades, which are certain to be loud and infinite (yes??). KDS4444 (talk) 23:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@KDS4444: Good Stuff! I still am trying to select biologically representative illustrations for uploading, that also look impressive (almost all those in Wikimedia either are bad photos or dramatic shots of bits of cobra. I'll have to contribute a few of UNaroused snakes so that people don't retain the impression that a cobra is constantly rearing and with a spread hood!) I have begun at User:JonRichfield/Cobra but haven't even begun to rough out the structure, so don't take it seriously yet.
We will have to remember that the article is NOT the same as Naja, and that will take a bit of sensitivity.
Furthermore, down the line, when we near completion we must look at all the individual cobra/Naja articles and purge them of material inappropriate in articles on individual species, that belongs in the more general cobra or Naja articles. (I am beginning to remember all the reasons I backed off from the idea in the first place, but I guess that as a team we can ace it.)
Good luck with moving -- a deeply unfavourite activity in our family...
As for accolades, try to ignore my cynicism; I reckon I am doing well enough if I can just achieve smugness :) JonRichfield (talk) 05:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@JonRichfield: Smugness is fine with me! And I was being sarcastic about the accolades anyway. One of the frustrating things about the cobra article for me is that apparently the term "cobra" also includes the annoying outlier that is the American cobra which has no hood at all and isn't remotely related to any of the traditional cobras (well, other than being a poisonous snake, of course) which makes the term "cobra" uncomfortably generic. But there is no changing that, and separating "cobra" from "Naja" will indeed be interesting. With regard to finding a photo of a cobra without a hood, I am going to second-guess you on that one: I think that people typing in "cobra" will certainly be expecting to encounter an image with a hood, as this is such a distinguishing characteristic of MOST (not all) of the snakes that we have come to call "cobras", though I also want to fully support the idea that not all cobras spend all their time with their hoods flared out and their heads up (I am picturing the African savannas covered in such snakes, and the appearance is truly comical!). I know that I was expecting to see a flared hood when I got to "cobra", and if I had NOT seen one I might have wondered where I had landed ("Wtf? Is that even a cobra? What kind of snake IS that?"). People are mostly jolly idiots, and even if we tried to put a more "sincere" image without the flared hood as the lead image, someone would almost certainly come along within hours and replace it with a hooded version (ah, the magic of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit!). We will be fighting a rising tide by trying to do otherwise, I think (though perhaps we could include some images elsewhere in the article that DO show the snake in a relaxed state... if you can find some). KDS4444 (talk) 02:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@KDS4444: Fine, I did get the idea of the accolades; WP needs more emoticon facilities (or am I missing them?) I am aware of the American cobra problem, and of other snakes that in fact are hood spreaders but are not elapids, and other elapids that do spread hoods and are not called cobras. Such items are what got me into this in the first place. That sort of thing is part of the reason why I reckon that the principle of naming articles for common names instead of Linnean species or taxon names is intellectually slovenly and accordingly unencyclopaedic, as opposed to merely wrong. The logical procedure is no hardship for the layman (or the scientist who happens not to know the current biological name) as long as the common name either has its own, justified and linked, article such as where there is insufficient correspondence to the Linnean name or as many common-name redirs to the definitive article as might be helpful to anyone. Cobra/Naja are classic examples,with remarks on "true cobras".
As for the hood thing, I fully agree. In fact I go further. I have not finished selecting the hood image, which for the reasons you mention I already had realised must be the top picture, but there also must be pictures to show other aspects, or people seeing a snake with no hood and not realising that that is what a cobra normally looks like, might be as badly misled as people meeting a skunk in a good mood and failing to realise that that is what a skunk normally smells like. Such common-name articles might well need more explicit images than the possibly sparer illustrations of fully technical articles. But I intend to include perhaps three photos contrasting different hood patterns; not many, but there are people who think that all cobras have the spectacle marks of the best-known Indian cobra. But those are details that we still have to settle. So far we seem to be very much on the same wavelength.
As for finding the necessary photos, no problem, I have some good ones of my own, and will be uploading them to WM as soon as I finish some unfinished dental and technical business. Cobras actually are fairly docile snakes and only hood if alarmed, though I must admit that every experienced cobra handler will admit that if you catch ten cobras, you get ten different personalities! I have no doubt that we can make this article enough of a showcase example to point to when arguing about the proper titles for biological articles. Then I can start on an article about Hood (zoology), for which as yet I have only a title. JonRichfield (talk) 05:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

See the talk page for your draft article. I've made some comments and proposals there for you to check out! I've also noticed the same problem with common names when it comes to the black widows, which I tried to remedy myself with limited success once upon a time. Messy business, that. KDS4444 (talk) 06:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)