User talk:Circeus/july-december2011

Orphaned non-free image File:Guilmonscreen.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Guilmonscreen.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 04:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Prefix/suffix/affix
In common English usage, affix is almost always a verb (to attach or fasten). When used as a noun, it is almost always with reference to a grammatical or linguistic element. Useddenim (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Sometimes I'm a dunce! Thanks for clearing up after me. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 July newsletter
We are half way through the penultimate round of this year's WikiCup; there is less than a month to go before we have our final 8. Our pool leaders are (Pool A, 189 points) and  (Pool B, 165 points). The number of points required to reach the next round is not clear at this time; there are some users who still do not have any recorded points. Please remember to update your submissions' pages promptly. In addition, congratulations to PresN, who scored the first featured topic points in the competition for his work on Thatgamecompany related articles. Most points this round generally have, so far, come from good articles, with only one featured article (White-bellied Sea Eagle, from ) and two featured lists (Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story, from PresN and Grammy Award for Best Native American Music Album, from ). Points for Did You Know and good article reviews round out the scoring. No points have been awarded for In the News, good topics or featured pictures this round, and no points for featured sounds or portals have been awarded in the entire competition. On an unrelated note, preparation will be beginning soon for next year's WikiCup- watch this space!

There is little else to be said beyond the usual. Please list anything you need reviewing on WikiCup/Reviews, so others following the WikiCup can help, and please do help if you can by providing reviews for the articles listed there. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews generally at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup- points are, of course, offered for reviews at GAC. Two final notes: Firstly, please remember to state your participation in the WikiCup when nominating articles at FAC. Finally, some WikiCup-related statistics can be seen here and here. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. 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 and The ed17 11:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Typhula quisquiliaris
I thought that was the case, but I was just going off what Mycobank said. Thanks for the fix. J Milburn (talk) 11:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the link, and added a note to the article about the illegitimacy (as well as putting it back into order). Thanks for your thoughts and your explanation. J Milburn (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 July newsletter
The finals are upon us; we're down to the last few. One of the eight remaining contestants will be this year's WikiCup champion! 150 was the score needed to progress to the final; just under double the 76 required to reach round 4, and more than triple the 41 required to reach round 3. Our eight finalists are:


 * , Pool A's winner. Casliber has the highest total score in the competition, with 1528, the bulk of which is made up of 8 featured articles. He has the highest number of total featured articles (8, 1 of which was eligible for double points) and total did you knows (72) of any finalist. Casliber writes mostly on biology, including ornithology, botany and mycology.
 * , Pool B's winner and the highest scorer this round. PresN is the only finalist who has scored featured topic points, and he has gathered an impressive 330, but most of his points come from his 4 featured articles, one of which scored double. PresN writes mostly on video games and the Hugo Awards.
 * , Pool A's runner-up. Hurricanehink's points are mostly from his 30 good articles, more than any other finalist, and he is also the only finalist to score good topic points. Hurricanehink, as his name suggests, writes mostly on meteorology.
 * , Pool B's runner-up. Wizardman has completed 86 good article reviews, more than any other finalist, but most of his points come from his 2 featured articles. Wizardman writes mostly on American sport, especially baseball.
 * , the "fastest loser" (Pool A). Miyagawa has written 3 featured lists, one of which was awarded double points, more than any other finalist, but he was awarded points mostly for his 68 did you knows. Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, including dogs, military history and sport.
 * , the second "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Resolute's points come from his 9 good articles. He writes mostly on Canadian topics, including ice hockey.
 * , who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool A). Most of Evan's points come from his 10 good articles, and he writes mostly on meteorology.
 * , who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Phil's points come from his 9 good articles, 4 of which (more than any other finalist) were eligible for double points. He writes mostly on aeronautics.

We say goodbye to our seven other semi-finalists,, , , , , and. Everyone still in the competition at this stage has done fantastically well, and contributed greatly to Wikipedia. We're on the home straight now, and we will know our winner in two months.

In other news, preparations for next year's competition have begun with a brainstorming thread. Please, feel free to drop by and share any thoughts you have about how the competition should work next year. Sign ups are not yet open, but will be opened in due course. Watch this space. Further, there has been a discussion about the rule whereby those in the WikiCup must delcare their participation when nominating articles at featured article candidates. This has resulted in a bot being created by new featured article delegate. The bot will leave a message on FAC pages if the nominator is a participant in the WikiCup.

A reminder of the rules: any points scored after August 29 may be claimed for the final round, and please remember to update submission pages promptly. If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, 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, or by email. 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 and The ed17 23:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Japanese IP editor adding your name to Talk page comments
Hi. I have been cleaning up after a Japanese IP editor and am concerned about the way in which he frequently includes your user name in many comments added to talk pages (such as these and these edits to Talk:List of road accidents and this edit to Talk:Ōita, Ōita). Were you aware of this? Do you know this user or have any connection with him? If not, I might report him for impersonation. --DAJF (talk) 11:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In the case of List of road accidents, those are copy-pasted paragraphs from the early trim(s) I did (though I do wish they did not include my signature). I have NO idea what the paragraph is doing in Talk:Ōita, Ōita. Circéus (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. I will ask the IP editor again to stop. --DAJF (talk) 23:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Moving comments about objective synonyms
Hello Circeus. In trying to copy/move the comments made about objective synonyms at the WP:Plants talk page (here) to the talk page at Name-bearing type, I considered it perhaps prudent to edit the discussion slightly. Before I make the move, you might want to check out my pruned version (and intro to the discussion) at my sandbox here, to see if you think it looks OK. Thanks. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 September newsletter
We are on this year's home straight, with less than a month to go until the winner of the 2011 WikiCup will be decided. The fight for first place is currently being contested by, and , all of whom have over 200 points. This round has already seen multiple featured articles (1991 Atlantic hurricane season from Hurricanehink and Northrop YF-23 from Sp33dyphil) and a double-scoring featured list (Miyagawa's 1948 Summer Olympics medal table). The scores will likely increase far further before the end of the round on October 31 as everyone ups their pace. There is not much more to say- thoughts about next year's competition are welcome on the WikiCup talk page or the scoring talk page, and signups will open once a few things have been sorted out.

If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, 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, or by email. 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 and The ed17 12:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Category "Plants described in ...."
I notice that you've added the category for "Plants described in ...." to some plant articles I've recently created. I'm not quite sure what value this category has, but I'll try to remember to add it in future. One minor point I noticed: the category hierarchy is wrongly named. WP:CENTURY is clear that the 19th century, for example, is 1801–1900. But the categories are organized in the following fashion: Category:Plants described in the 19th century > Category:Plants described in the 1800s > Category:Plants described in 1800. The simplest solution is to re-name e.g. "Plants described in the 19th century" to "Plants described in 1800–1899". Peter coxhead (talk) 11:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a problem across the ENTIRE by-year category architecture. See Category:2000s architecture for one example at random. Personally, I'm going to go for "ain't broke, don't fix it". But yeah at some point someone will probably launch an across-the-board discussion somewhere. Circéus (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, Category:2000s architecture avoids one problem, because "2000s" is not "21st century" (according to Wikipedia, although I think that this is now a rather pedantic and old-fashioned view), but on the other hand WP:CENTURY also recommends avoiding the "....s" style. Anyway, like you, I have no intention of meddling, but doubtless someone eventually will. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the Typo template
I didn't have a chance to correct it myself. You're quick! Happy editing... Chris the speller yack

"References" in List of Commelina species
I initially posted the following comment on Hamamelis's talk page, because I misread the history of the page, so I'm copying it here to give credit where it's due: I did feel a bit guilty about just flagging up that the List of Commelina species only went up to "j", without doing anything about it, so thanks for extending it to "m"!

To my mind, the "references" you recently created in the list aren't actually references. Firstly, no editor got that information from the "reference", so it's not a source. Secondly, the bibliographic information is not sufficiently complete to constitute a reference by the normal Wikipedia standards. Personally, I would remove all the bibliographic references as per WikiProject_Plants/Template, but I thought I'd raise it with you first. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As the page you link notes: "including the complete bibliographical reference in a list is unnecessary (except in a footnote)." Protologue information is appropriate for lists, just not as part of the list entry itself (hence my moving them all to the reference list). In time I'll probably come back to it and expand them fully, as I did for articles like List of Agaricales genera. It's too bad the IPNI information is so... overly concise compared to MycoBank (or the impressively cross-referenced ZooBank), it makes that kind of stuff nightmarish to research. I was going to get on it, then I realized the best approach would be a chapter citation for the Plantae Bequartianae stuff, but I cannot find the relevant info, so I let it go for the time being. Circéus (talk) 09:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It's always interesting to see how differently editors interpret WP policies/guidelines. I have to say that I don't think a "footnote" is the same as a "reference", and I do endorse WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT (having tried to drill this idea into students in the past I could hardly not do it myself!). So personally when I haven't seen the source in which a taxon is named, I've cited it as I did for R. grabertii in Renalia, namely as "original-source cited in source-where-the-full-reference-was-found". So I still think it would be better to display the bibliographic references other than in the way you do in List of Agaricales genera – but it's a matter of presentation, not content. By the way, I think you'll find that completing the references from the IPNI format will take you a very long time!


 * I notice that there isn't a reference at List of Agaricales genera for the source of this list: who places these genera in Agaricales (or indeed the families in the table)? There's so much churn in fungal classification that this is an important piece of information. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Having completed a LOT of those in the pasts (i.e. for the Tricholomataceae and Marasmiaceae lists, which preceded the Agaricales one as well as on Wikispecies), believe me when I say I know that. Most of the time I do take the time to doublecheck (at least at a secondary level: if a source give a fuller reference, I take it as hint that it was looked at), if only to verify bibliographic integrity. The placement reference for the mushroom list is Kirk & al. (Dict. Fungi, 14th ed.). It is unfortunately missing in that list (an oversight), but not, I believe, in the familial sublists. Circéus (talk) 12:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if you look at Note 11 at List of Agaricaceae genera, you'll see that it refers to "Kirk & al, 2010:259" but that this Harvard style reference is never expanded on the page... Peter coxhead (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Eng Foong Ho v. Attorney-General
Hi! About the tag you added to "Eng Foong Ho v. Attorney-General" – the problem is that very little has been written about the 2008 High Court decision and the 2009 Court of Appeal decision. I think all the secondary materials that discuss the case are already mentioned in the footnotes. What I could do is provide page and paragraph references to two case notes that have been written by Prof. Thio Li-ann about the High Court and Court of Appeal judgments. The case notes are mentioned in footnotes 5 and 37. Would this address your concern? — SMUconlaw (talk) 06:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 October newsletter
The 2011 WikiCup is now over, and our new champion is, who joins the exclusive club of the previous winners: (2007),  (2008),  (2009) and  (2010). The final standings were as follows:



Prizes for first, second, third and fourth will be awarded, as will prizes for all those who reached the final eight. Every participant who scored in the competition will receive a ribbon of participation. In addition to the prizes based on placement, the following special prizes will be awarded based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, the prize is awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round.


 * The Featured Article Award:, for his performance in round 2. matched the score, but Casliber won the tiebreaker.
 * The Good Article Award:, for his performance in round 4.
 * The Featured List Award:, for his performance in round 4. matched the score, but Miyagawa won the tiebreaker.
 * The Recognised Topic Award (for good and featured topics):, for his performance in round 3.
 * The Did You Know Award:, for his performance in round 1.
 * The In the News Award:, for his performance in round 1.
 * The Reviewer Award (for good article reviews):, for his performance in round 3.

No prize was awarded for featured pictures, sounds or portals, as none were claimed throughout the competition. The awards will be handed out over the next few days. Congratulations to all our participants, and especially our winners; we've all had fun, and Wikipedia has benefitted massively from our content work.

Preparation for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Interested parties are invited to sign up and participate in our straw polls. It's been a pleasure to work with you all this year, and, whoever's taking part in and running the competition in 2012, we hope to see you all in January! J Milburn and The ed17 00:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Citation templates
WP:CITE does not mandate the use of citation templates and at WP:CITEVAR specifically says "defer to the style used by the first major contributor" if there is disagreement. Please stop converting articles you are not contributing to to cite templates, it is not helpful.  Spinning Spark  23:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am deferring, as I stopped converting them when I noticed it was clearly unwanted. I could have used a templateless form (preserving at least the various data corrections and additions), but I suspected it would be reverted as well. Circéus (talk) 23:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I have redone the author corrections you included which got caught up in the general roll-back.  Were there any other serious errors I missed?  Spinning  Spark  00:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Mostly it is minor things: edition numbers and series which I had added (though I'm not that hardline on including series), you often cite individual volumes of multivolume works (Mehra & Rechenberg in particular is at issue), and a few corrections to data (date should be original date, not reprint unless it's a new ISBN). As far as formatting go, we normally do NOT directly link to material that is not freely accessible, hence the doi template for journal articles. I had also added a few bibliographic details for the thesis (both of which were freely accessible online) and Arndt & al. Circéus (talk) 00:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Donald W. Thomas
The DYK project (nominate) 12:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Formatting for taxonomic lists
I'm only aware of a few angiosperm families that have generic taxonomic lists currently on wikipedia (Arecaceae and Commelinaceae for example). They are very different from one another, so I would assume a specific format has not yet been adopted? The format you changed the Ericaceae article to is harder to interpret, less visually appealing, and results in a loss of data (as you can't list biodiversity numbers next to section titles). In general I'm all for standardising across plant systematics articles-- but that seems a bit premature here. Unless I'm unaware of a lot of other lists that all follow a specific format? Currently I think there's a bit of room for authors to format lists as they prefer, as long as the information is getting across. BC Myles (talk) 10:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right that there is currently no formal consensus of lists of genera, maybe a discussion at WT:PLANTS is in order. On specific points:
 * Harder to interpret/visually unappealing: I'd say this is very subjective. Your format violated several guidelines on formatting/coding of pages, e.g. on the non use of all-caps text and for resizing. You basicaly created manual headers, so it seems normal to convert them into formal ones. Basically this may be a typical format for a botanical or taxonomic publication, but the formatting just doesn't quite work on Wikipedia. There is definitely plenty of wiggle room regarding details of the formatting (i.e. columns, sections for tribes...). My reworking was not intended to be final!
 * Loss of data: There is in fact PLENTY of wiggle room for that. List sections are entitled to have text at their beginning ("Tribe Foobareae is characterized by..., and is the smallest, with X genera and y species."). I was a bit rushed (and lack knowledge on the Ericaceae), hence why I did not do it.
 * In general there is a lack of guidance in this area (if there were a featured list, it would greatly help, and in fact me and Sasata were planning to eventually submit a Fungi one at FLC). BTW, the list found in List of Commelinaceae genera is based off the tabular format found in several fungi lists, which is more detailed, but also more complex to create and manage (though it has the advantage that, amongst other things, it removes the need for separate alphabetical and taxonomic lists because it is sortable). See for example List of Agaricales genera. In the end, I'll be happy to help working on this list, and I have no doubt we arrive at a satisfying result. Circéus (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Tricholoma pardinum - francophone skills needed...
Thought you might be interested. Found out quite a bit about the convoluted history of the naming of this mushroom - we need a francophone to read a 1911 work by Rene Maire -have a read of the talk page Talk:Tricholoma pardinum with Maire link at the bottom. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the Commelina species list!
Hey Circeus! Long time no see! I just noticed your work on the List of Commelina species and I just wanted to say that you are amazing! Thanks for taking over after I gave up and doing a way better job! DJLayton4 (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In List of ISBN identifier groups, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Digit (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) 10:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:fruit morphology
Hi, there's a small problem with your categorization of Seed under Fruit morphology, and I don't know what, if anything, you would want to do about this. Gymnosperms have seeds but not fruit. Nadiatalent (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In response to your suggestion that I fix it, I declare myself defeated by categories. I don't know what should go where. Nadiatalent (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting...
...my mix-up on 37 Vernon Terrace (s/be Terrace, not Gardens). Now corrected. I may think about attempting some more of those redlinked notable squares/terraces in Brighton in the near future ... keep an eye on the Template! Cheers, Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!) 23:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * After the brief diversion to St Leonards-on-Sea (I found a partly written article lying around in a sandbox...!) I returned to Brighton and Hove for Clayton & Black. Strangely, for such a long established, eclectic firm, I haven't been able to trace a single building outside the city boundaries.  I now have two more free days off work to write a few short articles about some of their notable stuff.  That's enough for 2011 though!  Happy new year, Hassocks 5489 (tickets please!)  17:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

resource request
Hi Circeus,

I've uploaded the Zootaxa article that you requested at the resource exchange. You can find a link to the article on that page. Best, GabrielF (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

2012 WikiCup
Hi! As you've previously expressed interest in the competition, I'm just letting you know that the 2012 WikiCup is due to start in less than 24 hours. Signups are open, and will remain so for a few weeks after the beginning of the competition. The competition itself will follow basically the same format as last year, with a few small tweaks to point costs to reflect the opinions of the community. If you're interested in taking part, you're more than welcome, and if you know anyone who might be, please let them know too- the more the merrier! To join, simply add your name to WikiCup/2012 signups, and we will be in touch. Please feel free to direct any questions to me, or leave a note on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! You are receiving this note as you are listed on WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Please feel free to add or remove yourself. J Milburn (talk) 01:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Case Prior Histories
Hey Circeus! Thanks for dropping by and helping to fill in prior history citations for SCOTUS case pages. I have had trouble finding these - are you finding them in the opinion text itself or some other source? Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Great! Sounds good. I'll try not to leave such a big research hole for you to fill on future pages ;-) Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 19:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)