User talk:Stemonitis/Archive16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


This archive page covers approximately the dates between June 15 2007 and July 3 2007.

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

Citation style[edit]

Hi... Thanks for cleaning up the references at lobster, but according to Wikipedia:Citing sources, footnotes come after punctuation.[1] ~[[kinda]] 23:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It's only a guideline, not a hard-and-fast rule, and it doesn't really make any sense. The citation belongs with the phrase it follows, not the one after it. The leading scientific journals, including Nature, Science, and PNAS all put the citations before the punctuation. This probably developed from a shorthand for fuller citations as used by the more usual journals (Surname et al., 2006), which also go rigidly before the punctuation. The crustacean articles all consistently follow the same format, and that is an acceptable format, so there is no need to change it. --Stemonitis 06:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Pet food recalls move[edit]

Hi there, it wasn't terribly helpful to move the pet food recalls article since nobody had agreed on a name yet. There were no "agree" votes and several people opposing the move. Nobody had voted because there was not even a consensus to vote. I appreciate your efforts but please read the discussion more carefully next time. Jfwambaugh 19:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I read it alright. See my response at Talk:2007 pet food recalls#Move. --Stemonitis 20:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Then I don't see how you thought there was consensus. There was not even consensus to vote. Please feel free to take part in the discussion, but if you don't want to take the time to actually read the entire discussion, please don't interfere. Jfwambaugh 21:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Please read WP:RM to understand how the process works. Closing the debate properly is not usually called "intereference". --Stemonitis 05:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

City of Ember[edit]

It seems that both of us were on this move job at the same time and accidentally walked over each other's work. Sorry. Anthony Appleyard 05:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was very confusing. No apologies necessary, and since it's in order now, there's no harm done. --Stemonitis 05:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


I have to say that I think your work sounds really interesting. How did you get into it? Peterbean6 08:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Bose Archives[edit]

I was wondering why you didn't want to remove the duplicate archive (compare Talk:Bose_Corporation/Archive_1 and Talk:Bose_Corporation/Archive_2) and move Archive 3 to what it was originally Archive 2. Thanks! -- UKPhoenix79 09:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah right, now I see it. I was comparing the wrong two, which are genuinely different. It does seem a little odd that someone should make copies of an archive, but since it's not serving any purpose, I'll sort it out. --Stemonitis 14:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the misunderstanding. It should be sorted out now. Let me know if I've overlooked anything. --Stemonitis 14:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Looks good, Thanks :-) -- UKPhoenix79 16:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for your contribution! Krummy2 16:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


See reply. Simply south 12:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

List of historical figures portrayed by Shakespeare[edit]

Hi, I just wanted to say thanks for fixing my mistake. Somehow I missed the capitalized 'H'. I guess it's time to break for lunch. Anyway, thanks. :) Cheers S up? 13:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Franz Fiedler[edit]

Sorry, I didn't notice you already cleaned that article. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 16:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, OK, fair enough. It seemed like an odd decision to make, and I probably should have realised. --Stemonitis 17:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


When one is referring to a small brown bird with hairy feathers, it is a "kiwi". When one is referring to an enormous drawing of a small bird that has been carved into the ground, and is so large that it can be seen by airplanes, it is a "Kiwi".

Careful not to fix things that don't need fixing. DS 22:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I was careful not to change any further instances, but I do think that even the Bulford Kiwi is a kiwi as well as, perhaps, a Kiwi, even after a definite article. --Stemonitis 05:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
True, but this was in a context of maintenance. To maintain a kiwi, you use a nail scissors and a small comb. If you use a lawnmower and a shovel, it's a Kiwi. DS 04:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


Updated DYK query On June 27, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Glomeris marginata, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Well done Stemonitis, you've earnt yourself the coveted pictured slot for this interesting article, kindly nominated by Carabinieri. Keep up the good work and feel free to self nominate! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Old City move request[edit]

I am confused about your removal of the article from the uncontroversial moves section. Are you contesting the move yourself? If so, could you explain on the talk page why you feel that "Old City" usually refers to Jerusalem? Also, at some point a general article might get written on old cities. Thanks, nadav (talk) 10:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Consensus was alredy established on that talk page that "most of the time, "Old City" refers to Jerusalem" (although I see you've since changed that line). I'm not necessarily saying that I disagree with your appraisal of the situation, but questions of primary usage are difficult to determine on one's own, and any move request from "Xxx (disambiguation)" to "Xxx" centres around the concept of primary usage. Don't take it as a rebuff, merely a suggestion that the fuller procedure may be more appropriate. It may well go through unanimously, but the current state of affairs suggests that at least at some point in the past, someone thought that the Jerusalem topic was the primary meaning of "Old City", and we should give them a few days' opportunity to explain why. --Stemonitis 13:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
The change was a recent one by Epson291, who also agrees with disambiguating the title.[1] Nevertheless, we'll go through the full procedure if you like. nadav (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Séan Evans[edit]

Why did you change Séan Evans' DEFAULTSORT parameter from "Séan Evans" to "Sean Evans"? His name is spelled with an é, not an e. If the use of accents with the DEFAULTSORT template is against convention, then fair enough, but I'd like to know why nonetheless. - PeeJay 18:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categorization of people#Ordering names in a category details how accented letters must be replaced with their unaccented counterparts in order to have the article collated correctly in categories. Without it, Séan Evans is listed after Stewart Evans, rather than before Shawn Evans. --Stemonitis 18:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
That's what I thought it might have been. Cheers for the clarification :) - PeeJay 18:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

J. P. Howell[edit]

There is no space in J.P. or any initials for that matter. Please stop undoing what I've done, my edits are right.Chris Nelson 19:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you overlook my edit summary? The naming conventions for personal names (WP:NCP) are perfectly clear that "[f]or abbreviated names (if these are the most used) every abbreviation is followed by a point, and every point is followed by a single space" (emphasis copied from source). Different people may apply different styles, and omitting spaces between initials is one option, but it is certainly not the only possibility. I would always put a space in, and the naming conventions concur with me. They represent "a standard that all users should follow", and have been worked out by many people over a long time. Also, please do not try to move pages by copying and pasting — that destroys the page history, which is necessary for licensing reasons. Any move you cannot complete yourself can be referred to WP:RM or elsewhere. --Stemonitis 20:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

He is J.P. Howell, not J. P. Howell. This has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. You're putting him under a name that is not his, plain and simple.Chris Nelson 20:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The policy is fucking retarded. There is no logic in having a guy under a name that isn't how he is present EVER.Chris Nelson 20:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Spacing is a stylistic issue and is entirely a matter of house style. The Wikipedia standard is to include a space, regardless of usage elsewhere. WP:NCP is quite clear on this. If you have a problem with the policy, shouting here will not help. The policy against cutting and pasting is much stronger, incidentally. --Stemonitis 20:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not a style issue, and that policy is 100% illogical and without reason. One name is how he is known, the other is one that is not used ANYWHERE else but here, unless by accident. You are wrong on this and so is the policy, so stop being a sheep and do something about it.Chris Nelson 20:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the current situation (article and page history both at J. P. Howell) is fine; it conforms to the naming conventions, to the normal rules of grammar, and to my own preferences (although the last is only incidental). If you want to change policy, then by all means go ahead and try to establish a consensus in favour of your view. Until then, the article should remain at its current title. A word of advice, though: if you do plan to try to overturn the current standard, you will need a stronger argument than any you have presented so far, and comparing people to livestock is unlikely to be taken kindly (see WP:NPA). --Stemonitis 21:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess I violated that other policy, WP:Honesty. Oh wait, it doesn't exist. I guess I'm allowed to be honest, and in this case if someone is displaying sheep-like (or conformist) behavior it seems to me it's not a personal attack but rather honesty. As for my argument, my argument is 100% solid and logical. A person should be named on Wikipedia by the name they actually go by. Period. He is not known as J. P. Howell by anyone, and therefore not "style" should overrule that.Chris Nelson 21:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

… and you don't need to be convincing me; you need to be convincing the community. This is fundamentally the wrong place to whine. I've tried to point you in the right direction, but I see now that you're not listening. If you have nothing new to say, I shall consider the matter closed. --Stemonitis 21:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

mouthparts (undone move)[edit]

Hi Stemonitis. I recently suggested a structure from some arthropod pages (Is it too big? Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Arthropods). The concept was an overview of arthropod mouthparts (being the mouthparts page I moved to mouthparts (arthropods)) under which I intended specific pages on insects (to which the bee subsection would go, from mouthparts), myriapods, crustaceans and chelicerates (as a start). I thought it would be good to have mouthparts (arthropods) because I see little value in a mouthparts page which could, by definition, cover all animals types with mouthparts and thus be too big to be of any use.

Perhaps I shouldn't have made the move before completng the set, but I thought you had agreed with my concept. Clearly I don't have the time in this community that you dothat you do, but I thought I was on the mark with this, so I'd appreciate your feedback, here or User_talk:Heds. Heds 06:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The article mouthparts isn't yet so big that it really needs to be split, and the various bits of anatomy are, fundamentally, homologous throughout the arthropods. These are also the only organisms to have "mouthparts" rather than just a mouth. All of this means that there should be at least an overview article at mouthparts discussing mouthparts in general, and how they vary among groups. Whether we then have separate articles for insect mouthparts, crustacean mouthparts, myriapod mouthparts, or separate articles for mandibles, maxillae, etc. is perhaps open to question, but the main article must remain at mouthparts. I am not aware of the term "mouthparts" being widely used for other groups of animals, but even if it is, that would probably only require a link at the top of the article ("For the mouths of other animals, see mouth." or something similar), because the arthropod structures are the primary meaning. Having said all that, the article does definitely need improvement, and I would welcome any additions you could make to it. I cobbled much of it together in an hour or two, and it's missing a great deal. --Stemonitis 06:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: "mouthparts" is sometimes used of molluscs, but only very rarely compared to its use for arthropods, and molluscan mouth anatomy is covered at radula. --Stemonitis 06:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


What's the problem? Tigermighty 11:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, let me apologise for the abruptness of my actions in deleting Category:Malacostraca, which was primarily to prevent you from wasting effort on a fruitless task. I'm sure you meant well, but unfortunately, that is not a good choice for a category. Categorisation need not follow every taxonomic rank, and categories should only be split when there is a need for it. Category:Crustaceans is currently of a manageable size, and I doubt that adding Category:Malacostraca would help (and even then, it would apply to Category:Decapods, and not to the articles within that category, such as Japanese spider crab). --Stemonitis 12:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
ok. so Japanese spider crab should be in Category:Decapods, right? Tigermighty 12:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, it is, indirectly. It's in Category:Crabs, which is a subcategory of Category:Decapods, which is a subcategory of Category:Crustaceans. If we ever end up with so many articles that we need to introduce a Category:Malacostraca, then we will not move all the decapod articles individually from one category to another, but simply change Category:Decapods to be in the new category. I don't think that's likely any time soon, but it demonstrates the principle. --Stemonitis 12:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
ok, thanks :) Tigermighty 12:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Living people[edit]

Your creating a category does not make it the official administrative category of the BLPP. And how useful a category is it if it only has one article in it? - Crockspot 18:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Then put more in it! I don't know which articles you lot want to keep track of by such means, but I'm sure there are many; note, for example, that the article political positions of Barack Obama mentioned in dicsussions is not currently in Category:Living people and nor are many other articles which do not cover living people. Just give it a go, as I requested. It is a solution which introduces one small inconvenience for some people while defusing an apparently intractable edit war. It is also a solution to which nobody has objected and against which nobody has made a complaint. It is, in short, a good idea. Your edit summary also suggested that you had misinterpreted its intended use, since you stated that the category was for talk pages. This is simply not the case, as I'm sure you now understand. --Stemonitis 18:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

We already have the Living people category for this purpose. Please see WP:BLPN#Living people category. Living people was created just for this purpose. You are introducing a new category for the BLPP group to use, yet you have not tried to get consensus, nor even attempted to notify us that you are making our monitoring twice as hard, for no reason. Pay partiular attention to Jimbo's comments in the CfD link. If you don't agree, I suggest you take it up with Jimbo. - Crockspot 18:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

And I'm not doing anything to undermine that. Indeed, a new category is likely to increase the number of articles which are overseen by the group (see example above) which are currently excluded from such categories. I made the suggestion at WT:BLPN, one person thought it was a good idea, and nobody dissented. This is not an attack on you; this is a suggestion to help your group and thus the whole project. Please take it as it was intended. --Stemonitis 18:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Look, I apologize for being short with you, it's just that I am frustrated, having been hassling about this for days with other editors. I am particularly irked that an admin does not see that we have been using this category like this for a long time. I add "political position" articles, and other bio forked articles to the category all the time. They may not be on my personal watchlist though, so I do not always see when they get reverted. Having to monitor multiple related changes pages while patrolling makes it harder to monitor, and INCREASES the chances that articles will not be monitored, because a) some patrollers will not bother to monitor more than one category, and b) they may miss the changes in one category while their attention is focused on the other category. (We are seeing more than ten edits per minute to the Living people category). We have very limited and low-tech tools to use, (we have not bots or scripts, just "related changes"), so the job is already a lot more difficult to do than rc patrolling, and it is a thoroughly thankless job. Just about everyone hates you when you try to enforce BLP. Anything that adds another layer of complexity or difficulty to the job only discourages people from even trying to do BLP patrol. - Crockspot 19:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
If you're already being swamped by the number of changes to Category:Living people, then splitting it into two different categories will probably help. I understand your concerns, but I think you should at least consider my suggestion. I understand the purpose of the category, and I'm not trying to undermine it; I'm just trying to find a solution that will satisfy as many people as possible. --Stemonitis 21:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Crustaceans: Maxillipeds[edit]

I recently read about the maxillipeds of crustaceans, and I was wondering what exactly they are, the equivalent of mouthparts (mandibles and maxillae) or thoracic legs that function as jaws, separate from the mouthparts? Also, do decapods such as crabs and shrimps have mandibles and maxillae, as well as maxillipeds? Thank you. --Crustaceanguy 11:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The mouthparts of a crustacean (decapods at least — I'm not so familiar with the other groups) comprise one pair of mandibles and one pair of maxillae, as well as a labrum on the mid-line. There are also three pairs of thoracic legs which are used in feeding, but I don't know if they're normally counted as mouthparts. Probably not, since they are thoracic, rather than cephalic appendages. At least the first two pairs of maxillipeds are very small and mouthpart-like. The third maxillipeds can be quite large, and in shrimp and prawns are fairly close to the remaining thoracic legs (pereiopods) in form (on this picture, the 3rd maxillipeds are visible as the achelate appendages just above the first chelate (clawed) appendage, which is the 1st pereiopod). --Stemonitis 11:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
And I forgot the maxillules! I knew I was missing something. --Stemonitis 12:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Move requests on Princes Kwacho[edit]

I noticed you have removed the move requests I placed on Prince Kwacho Hirotsune and Prince Kwacho Hiroatsu. As I placed both templates correctly, created a section on Hiroatsu's article, and a section for it on WP:RM, I am confused as to what I have done wrong. Please let me know, so we can get the request reactivated and these pages moved. Thank you. LordAmeth 15:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I found no sign of the requests at WP:RM (neither "Ameth" nor "Kwacho" occurs on that page), and your contributions log shows no such edit around the time you added the {{move}} tags. I must assume that you merely overlooked that action. Please feel free to replace the tags, and to list the moves at WP:RM, but make sure you do do both. Category:Requested moves tends to fill up with incomplete requests, and every so often I go through it, removing all the articles where the request was left half done. This is no comment on the request itself, which may of course be pursued, just as long as it's listed in the proper way. --Stemonitis 15:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. I wouldn't assume that you meant this as any comment on the validity of the moves requested; I understand. I must have simply overlooked that part, as you say. I've made many move requests in the past, guess it just slipped my mind somehow. Cheers. LordAmeth 17:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


There's not been much reaction on this (well just you actually). Is there another forum to take it to, or do you think I can just be bold & do it? Pump notice perhaps. Johnbod 16:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I say go for it. Just make the changes. That talk page is the obvious place for discussion, so if anyone was really interested, they'd be watching it. --Stemonitis 16:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, will do!


The following request to move a page has been added to Wikipedia:Requested moves as an uncontroversial move, but this has been contested by one or more people. Any discussion on the issue should continue here. If a full request is not lodged within five days, the request will be removed from WP:RM. —Stemonitis 22:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Responding to this my question is what do I need to do? Clearly, when an uninvolved editor his only edit is changing the name, contrary to the actual name, and without debate why would it not be possible to immediately undo this single and disruptive contribution? The editor himself acknowledged he does not know the club, nor even has a valid reason for the newly chosen name. Could you not undo this and ask him to debate renami8ng instead of me to debate unrenaming it? Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 09:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
It was more because of the concerns raised by User:Koavf about the strange mix of initials and quote marks that the move is contested. I can see a couple of alternatives, and I'm not sure which is best. The most commonly used name of the organisation, in English texts, may be either Skadi or Algemene Rotterdamse Studenten Roeivereniging. The article should thus probably be renamed either Skadi (rowing club) (Skadi already existing as a disambiguation page), or Algemene Rotterdamse Studenten Roeivereniging. I am not qualified to say which is better, and I think wider input would probably be beneficial. --Stemonitis 09:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
You miss my argument which is that Algemene Rotterdamse Studenten Roeivereniging simply means student rowing club, which of course refers to thousands of clubs globally. Second, whether you agree with him or not does that mean we should ignore the name the club itself uses, which is A.R.S.R. "Skadi"? See links for evidence. If policy means we cannot name the article appropriately I want to reffer to WP:IAR, or the article deleted. It cannot be that the actual, official and self-chosen name by any organisation is not allowed as article title. Please advise why that is not possible. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Surely it translates literally as "General Rotterdam Students' Rowing Club"? --Stemonitis 10:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and "Skadi" is added to differentiate from other clubs. Simply put it is rowing club "Skadi." But that does not answer my question as to why the name the cub uses -A.R.S.R. "Skadi" ( can't be an article title. To be accurate there are two acceptable names Algemene Rotterdamse Studenten Roeivereniging "Skadi" and A.R.S.R. "Skadi", you may have noticed neither of them is being used at present. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 11:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Waiting for somebody to restore the official name I have renamed the article to a less flawed version in which at least the name Skai appears. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 12:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The club itself mostly uses the single word "Skadi" to describe itself, with one instance of "Skadi Rotterdam Students Rowing Club" and one of "Rotterdam 'Skadi' Students Rowing Club". Their usage is actually hardly consistent enough to make much of. Looking at other people's usage, though, a pattern becomes clear: "Skadi" on its own is used more often than any other combination, making the current title, Skadi (rowing club), the best choice. The problem with A.R.S.R "Skadi" is that it's neither one thing nor the other; it is neither the usual short form of the name, nor the longer official version. Instead it's a strange chimæra of two different naming systems. You can't hedge your bets with article naming; you must plump for one or the other. Thus, both Algemene Rotterdamse Studenten Roeivereniging "Skadi" and A.R.S.R. "Skadi" are poor choices. Compare the nl: title. --Stemonitis 15:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
You are right that common usage is "Skadi." However, do take a look at their website and what do they say is the "adres" (address)
A.R.S.R 'Skadi'
Noorderkanaalweg 20-22
3037 AV Rotterdam
Then, looking at their hyves page[2] we find they call themselves A.R.S.R "Skadi" or Algemene Rotterdamse Studenten Roeivereniging "Skadi". Again I ask you on what grounds should we ignore the name they have chosen themsleves on both their internet sites and other correspondence? So, either A.R.S.R. "Skadi" or if that is problematic Algemene Rotterdamse Studenten Roeivereniging "Skadi" should be used. I still have not seen any argument for ignoring the official designation. As an aside, have you seen what name is placed at the beginning of the Dutch article and made bold? Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 18:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Being impatient but without any alterior motive I have asked for more input here. Hope you don't mind. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 00:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that was the right course of action, and the people there seem to agree with me. If you want to change the name, the bet way to achieve it is explained at WP:RM. The problems began because the move was wrongly listed as uncontroversial.The move that you were trying to undo was not vandalism, so clearly someone thought that the newer title was better. That alone makes it not uncontroversial. --Stemonitis 05:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


Hi Stemonitis, I didn't mean to tread on any toes. I simply think 'carers' is the most appropriate term. I've been following this article for a while and I'm confident that Excalibur's edits are in good faith and they better reflect the given terminology. I'm sure we can come to a shared agreement on this. --Nicholas 19:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


Hi Stemonitis, The internationally agreed term by a range of organisations representing carers, including the USA is simply has the benefit of simplicity and ownership by the community of carers themselves, as well as a fine etymological heritage from the Old English carian, Old Saxon karon, etc etc.....why muck up a perfectly good word that carers themselves accept with a modern coinage that has no international currency?..I'm a current carer, and a former Trustee of two major carers charities, I agree that the word 'caregiver' may be valid in the USA but it means absolutely nothing in the wider international community. How do you propose we resolve this amicably...? Excalibur 22:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

NHS article[edit]

i'm sorry I can't find the original article, but i was wondering why you deleted the N-hydroxy succinamide article? it seems like a common-enough reagant to warrant its own page, no? or perhaps it's been moved somewhere that i cannot find? thanks for the info... Roadnottaken 22:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The article is at N-hydroxysuccinimide. I had deleted it, quoting "CSD A3", which is the criterion for speedy deletion relating to articles with no content whatsoever. This was clearly wrong (I must have intended to delete a different article, I suppose), and I have restored the article and made a few improvements. Sorry about that. --Stemonitis 05:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Grave Danger move[edit]

Just a note to say thanks for sorting this out. Editus Reloaded 10:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

hi stemonitis, i see you reverted my change in the stemonitis article[edit]

i changed the link from myxo blabla to slime mould because the myxo article sucked and it all the classification schemes are in flux and i decided to make the slime mould article the main one for the fluctuating grouping containing Stemonitis, and other "plasmodial slime moulds". see my revision of slime mould. If you think we should make Myxomycota the main article for these critters and put in different redirects let me know.

see my comment on the discussion page for slime mould, there is half a dozen pages surrounding this group and fluctuating taxonomy and it's a mess.

how do i get together some people to discuss how to clean it up? the archives on the various project pages bewilder me.Wikiskimmer 14:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I just thought that having a link with one taxon name linking to a different taxon was confusing. I do not necessarily believe that one name is better than the other, and I know next to nothing of the higher systematics of the group. As I tried to crowbar into the edit summary, having "Mycetozoa" (and linking it to slime mould) in the taxobox would be fine, as would having "Myxomycota" and linking to Myxomycota. It's only the mixing of the two that I consider undesirable. These areas where the taxonomy and nomenclature are changing are always difficult from an encyclopaedia point of view. Often, it's best to stick with a slightly out-dated taxonomy if it provides the stability that we need. It also makes it easier to find the necessary references, since there's often next to no secondary literature about more recently erected taxa. In any event, the articles should explain the different possibilities. The talk page of the article slime mould has been tagged by WikiProject Microbiology, so that might be a decent place to get a discussion going. I don't know of any other applicable projects except WP:TOL, which has a vast remit. Finally, the poor quality of an article is not usually a reason to remove links to it, but rather a reason to improve that article. --Stemonitis 14:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
how about if i just turn myxomycota into a redirect to slime mould. there's nothing of valuue in the myxomycota article. or rename slime mould mycetozoa and have everything redirect to that?
i think all this phylogeny in flux will flumox us. all the old categories were of course artificial, life is a tangled bush of 100million branches with no well defined levels, but at least the old categories were fairly stable for human life times. For PhD students looking for a new organism to grind dna out of it's a fine game, but for an encyclopedia we need stable catagories.
my preference is to find the most stable units, like the 6 i identified in the slime mold article and put the biology in each one of them. then you can have a nest of fluctuating taxo pages pointing to each other...Wikiskimmer
i don't see much discussion in WikiProject Microbiology and that strikes me as being focussed on medical. Wikipedia:WikiProject Prokaryotes and protists seems most appropriate but is inactive. do i want to read the 20 archives in TOL discussion to see if there is a consensus? argghhhhWikiskimmer 14:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Like I say, I don't know much about the higher taxonomy, so if the two are reasonably synonymous, then redirecting one to the other might make sense. If, on the other hand, they represent two competing hypotheses about the evolution of the group, then separate articles may be warranted. The fact that there are no inbound links to Talk:Slime mould (and not even a page at Talk:Myxomycota) suggests quite strongly that the topic has not been discussed much. --Stemonitis 16:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
    • ^ like so