User talk:Circeus/january-march2010

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Circeus! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Alys Robi -

Thanks
For chipping in at Greenlandic language all assistance is appreciated.·Maunus· ƛ · 09:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 2010 Papua New Guinea bus crash
An editor has nominated 2010 Papua New Guinea bus crash, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. - Eastmain (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Goose Creek Oil Field
Hi,

Can you explain this edit a little further? Several (not all) of the oil field articles use this navbox. I am curious about your removing it from this particular article. Is this an expression of the importance of this field? This field was instrumental in launching Humble Oil into becoming one of the largest oil companies and it thereby contributed to ExxonMobil today being a leading oil company. Certainly this field was the prime reason that today the largest refinery in the U.S. is located in Baytown, and the Galveston Bay Area today is one of the main (arguably the leading) refining/petrochemical center in the U.S.

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, basically there are two approaches to it. First, there's the fact that a too-broad navbox is of little interest to readers of the article. Generally, even though I might have an interest in reading Goose Creek Oil Field, I will more than likely not really be interested from reading that article in readin Drilling engineering and Chevron Corporation. And if my reason for navigating to it is that I'm already interested in the field of petroleum drilling as a whole, then most likely I am already familiar with these articles and adding them is just pointless for me as the connection is just too tenuous.


 * Second I believe that a navigation template that is applied beyond its scope (AKA on articles not listed in it) is "selfish" because it concentrates traffic to these articles while distracting it from the smaller articles that are more topically related to the article at hand, plus it might not direct that much traffic anyway because of the above remarks (see here for an analysis of the effect of a topical navbox). I would greatly approve of a template about, say, the Texas Oil Boom, oil drilling in Texas or the Gulf of Mexico (a poorly covered topic IMHO), or even the history of ExxonMobil that included the article, is just too remote, just like  arguably has little business in Fred Pierce Corson.


 * Well, certainly I am not trying to make too big a deal about Navboxes. Having said that I am not sure I understand what you mean by "too-broad navbox". My attitude is that navboxes themselves should be fairly constrained in what they contain, not trying to list every single tenuously related article. But that does not mean that articles that are somewhat tenuously connected cannot use that navbox (even though it is not part of the navbox). The purpose of the navbox is ultimately to help the reader find articles centered around a particular topic. So if &mdash; say &mdash; a reader finds an article on the United Nations building and suddenly finds him or herself curious about other things related to New York it is nice to have a navbox for New York at the bottom. Does this mean that the UN building should be in the navbox for New York? No, of course not. But there is no harm in having the navbox in the article.
 * In general my personal criteria for not including a navbox are as follows:
 * The number of navboxes in the article is more than 3 or 4 making the navboxes more distracting than helpful. At that point only the 3 or 4 most directly relevant navboxes should be kept.
 * A navbox is so tenuously related to the topic as to be more silly and confusing than to be informative.
 * To me a major oil field is clearly a part of the oil industry even though it might not be the first thing somebody would think of (the more common topics being the corporations, technology, etc.).
 * Anyway, the only reason I'm making an issue of this is that, in general, I think navboxes are not used enough in WP and I believe that they are very useful in directing people to the core articles related to major topics. But I won't get into a battle over this article so do as you like. :-)
 * --Mcorazao (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Panellus stipticus
Hi Circeus, thanks much for expanding the etymology for this article. In the FAC, I've been questioned about the reliability of the "Online Etymological Dictionary" website, and I don't think it quite meets FAC standards. Would you be able to easily add the book reference you mentioned in your comments? If it's too much bother, don't worry about it, I think I can find others who might have easier access to a RS to source this. Thanks, Sasata (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 January newsletter
We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. We've had some shakeups regarding late entries, flag changes and early dropouts, but the competition is now established- there will be no more flag changes or new competitors. Congratulations to, our current leader, who, at the time of writing, has more listed points than and   (second and third place respectively) combined. A special well done also goes to - his artcle Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri) was the first content to score points in the competition.

Around half of competitors are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. 64 of the 149 current competitors will advance to round 2- if you currently have no points, do not worry, as over half of the current top 64 have under 50 points. Everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places in round 2! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! J Milburn, Garden, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Gertrude Simmons Burlingham
Hello! Your submission of Gertrude Simmons Burlingham at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Thelmadatter (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Mycena haematopus
Thank you much for your edits to the article :) However, the article is under review and so that the process will go more smoothly, please participate in the review via discussion on the review page before making further edits. I apologize for any possible inconvenience :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 07:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 February newsletter
Round one is over, and round two has begun! Congratulations to the 64 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our first round. A special well done goes to, our round one winner (1010 points), and to and , who were second and third respectively (640 points/605 points). Sasata was awarded the most points for both good articles (300 points) and featured articles (600 points), and TonyTheTiger was awarded the most for featured topics (225 points), while Hunter Kahn claimed the most for good topics (70). claimed the most featured lists (240 points) and featured pictures (35 points), claimed the most for Did you know? entries (490 points),  claimed the most for featured sounds (70 points) and  claimed the most for In the news entries (40 points). No one claimed a featured portal or valued picture.

Credits awarded after the end of round one but before round two may be claimed in round two, but remember the rule that content must have been worked on in some significant way during 2010 by you for you to claim points. The groups for round two will be placed up shortly, and the submissions' pages will be blanked. This round will continue until 28 April, when the top two users from each group, as well as 16 wildcards, will progress to round three. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup; thank you to all doing this last round, and particularly to those helping at WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

ANYBIO wording
A discussion has been started buried inside here to change the wording of anybio to remove "been nominated for one several times" and use "been nominated two or more times" or perhaps 3 or more. Since you last modified this section your comments are requested. - Stillwaterising (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ref formatting
You have my full approval of any changes you propose to introduce to the reference system of any article that I have worked on - not that you need it. I HATE formatting references and will only be grateful for your assistance. Most of the details of the refs to Otomí language was provided by USER:CJLL Wright who is much more patient than me when it comes to adding OCLC numbers, DOI's ISSN's and all that jazz. If anyone would object it'd be him - but I don't think he will when you have good reasoning behind your choices. If you want to help out at Zapotec civilization you are very welcome too.·Maunus· ƛ · 08:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Comma splice
I've just undone your edit on this page, partly as it accidentally left a chunk of words hanging in mid-air, and partly as the sentence you removed is true for German, at least. I translate German for a living and have a very weighty German grammar book which I would be happy to translate in part for you if you like. Saint|swithin 10:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999
I actually agree with him there; I'll take a look at the textbooks when I get back to London near the end of March. This entire shitfest sparked after I wrote this; he reverted to this because I "should have included his contributions in the final version", those contributions being here. The end result is a version nobody likes which looks like utter crap, and a complete refusal to budge on it despite a third opinion request here where a 2:1 ratio went "Ironholds' version is superior to Wikidea's". Anything you could do to help in this particular situation would be much appreciated, although I appreciate you didn't exactly sign up to it. Ironholds (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Noted; having never created one before, I had no idea. Hopefully my suggestion will stick, otherwise I'll have to have little passive-aggressive comments directed at me through edit summaries until I give up. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Gertrude Simmons Burlingham
Hello! Your submission of Gertrude Simmons Burlingham at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 12:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi
Hi. You wrote some messages to me on my page. Can you in detail, but simply, takt to me about OCILLA and DCMA, about what they tell you, and such things etc. Reply--Theologiae (talk) 14:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Translation
Hi, would you be so kind as to provide a translation of the title of source #4 in Yellow-tailed Black Cockatoo, so I don't have to rely on my weak Grade 12 French? Thanks! Sasata (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD
Please check out: Articles for deletion/Series of tubes (3rd nomination). Thanks. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Oryzomys dimidiatus
I am looking for the significance of the name of Oryzomys dimidiatus, a species I'm working on (original description here). According to Lewis & Short, dimidiatus means "cut in half", but I can't see what that could refer to. Do you know whether dimidiatus has any other meaning in taxonomic Latin? Ucucha 02:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Stearn (Botanical Latin, 2nd ed.) gives "dimidiatus" as "half-formed". It's used particularly of leaves where one side of the main vein is markedly underdeveloped, making it asymmetric. It also says that "dimidium" means "half", so I'd suggest something having to do with symmetry of some sort, or maybe the sides (OED has one def. for "dimidiate" that goes: "Zool. Relating to the lateral halves of an organism"). Circéus (talk) 03:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the check! It's a good card-carrying bilaterian, so I don't see any possibilities with asymmetry. The latter part of the OED definition makes it clear that it can't have much to do with this rice rat, an undoubted male, either (although it would be an interesting subject to write on). Thomas does write that it is much smaller ("less than half the bulk") of other species of Nectomys (the genus he placed it in). I think that may be the significance, although the meaning is distinctly different than the one you cite. Ucucha 03:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Latin and the way it was used by biologists is finicky. I'd suggest the adjective here means "being half of" the weight. I can have a look at the Oxford Latin Dictionary Monday. Drop me a line then. [ETA] Apparently I'm not the only one having trouble with line breaks tonight. Circéus (talk) 03:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're probably right. I'll also be able to get to the Oxford dictionary in any library here. Perhaps I should compile rice rat etymologies I need to look up: I never yet found out either what molitor in Lundomys and simplex in Pseudoryzomys mean.
 * I think wikEd is having issues with copy-pasting (I started replying on my talk before you moved your post here). This was caused by the same problem. Ucucha 03:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Unless it has an obscure meaning (in botany it's used by opposition to "branched" or "compound" in addition to its obvious meaning), I doubt you'll get much from simplex. molitor is apparently "miller" (from molō, molire, "grind"), though you'll want to double check that with a proper paper source. Circéus (talk) 03:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think simplex may refer to it having simpler teeth than Lundomys molitor, with which Winge (who first described both species) thought it related, and molitor may refer to the robust, high-crowned teeth which would presumably grind well. But the description is in Danish, so I can't read much of it to see whether he mentions these traits. Ucucha 04:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Holy Trinity Church, Cuckfield
Thx for sorting out the columns (I'm still failing dismally to remember) and the picture placement. I have moved the tower/spire one down because it was causing whitespace on my work browser settings. Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!)  08:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 March newsletter
We're half way through round two, and everything is running smoothly. leads overall with 650 points this round, and heads pool B. currently leads pool C, dubbed the "Group of Death", which has a only a single contestant yet to score this round (the fewest of any group), as well five contestants over 100 points (the most). With a month still to go, as well as 16 wildcard places, everything is still to play for. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Although unrelated to the WikiCup, April sees a Good Article Nominations backlog elimination drive, formulated as a friendly competition with small awards, as the Cup is. Several WikiCup contestants and judges have already signed up, but regular reviewers and those who hope to do more reviewing are more than welcome to join at the drive page. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)