User talk:Circeus/september2007

Lion
OK, would much appreciate a wiki-analysis of this one; I finally think I've got the content just about right, though I am a bit irked by the Attacks on humans section for some reason. I didn't add the material there and am not really familiar with it so have been loath to play with it much yet. Clayoquot nicely did some tweaking too, and Marskell's been ducking in and out - anyway, I might take it to FAC pretty soon depending on what you reckon (always nice to deal with problems before the FAC than have a big page of text on the FAC page..). I've left the cockatoo for a moment pending a couple of bits information I need to retrieve from somewhere (how much the damn things cost in an aussie pet shop for one..) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm very familiar with Weebl & Bob and the toons....can't remember who pointed me in their direction years ago. I was tempted to have the image with the knives nad forks and dead zebra under diet and hunting XD....


 * Thanks for all that..that'll give me plenty to go on for a few days at least...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

..I appear to be missing something; I am making a lions in captivity subsection but can't for the life of me find the piddly bit you mention on my talk page..and I've scanned the page up and down a few times..cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:LAME
Yeah... I moved another one before that was two admins using their rollback tool against each other. I figure that any two people can revert each other, and the fact that it's using rollback doesn't turn it into a wheel war. That's sort of a judgement call, though. Grand master  ka  23:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Kertesz
Wow! Thanks for rewriting the opening, it looks 100 times better now. Just thought I'd thank you for all the work you've done on the article whilst I've been away and prior to that. Thanks again... :) Spawn Man 08:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Raëlian Church membership estimates
Hi there. I know you been watching the page. But for many days now I've seen you update other entries yet you seem to have totally forgot about this one.◙◙◙  I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢  ◙◙◙ 21:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Édifice Price GA
I have copyedited per our discussion; further comments on the article talk page. Cheers! EyeSerene TALK 10:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Architectural syles
What category should this go in: Dougong? Are the categories supposed to go from most general to most specific? Regards, --Mattisse 20:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

DYK submission
I have listed zaojing  for DYK so I am wishing you don't screw with it until after. Dougong already got through so I won't worry about correcting it for now. Regards, --Mattisse 23:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

(no redlinks in references, please)
Why not? Hesperian 03:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * ''You're the first to ask, so I'm assuming that most people find it makes sense. I don't mind if the idea was to fill it almost immediately, but throwing in redlinks with the supposition that they will evantually be filled is inappropriate because of the very nature of references: they serve to verify the accuracy and credibility of our information. Any wikilink added there should be examined for its relevance even more stringently than any link anywhere else in the article. So it comes to: "they don't help with verifying the article", and also, on the sidelines, attracts stronger, unnecessary attention to the fact the specific article is missing. It's not much different than eliminating self-redirects or red links from "See also", really. Circeus 03:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I suspect I'm the first to ask because I'm the only person I know who considers it important to link to notable sources. i.e. rather than people not redlinking in references, most people don't bother to link at all. But that is an aside. It had never occurred to me that redlinks in references might bother some people; in future I shall bear that in mind.
 * I intend to write A Sketch of the Vegetation of the Swan River Colony this week, or perhaps next week depending on how long it takes me to check the current status of the 280-odd names that were published in it. So I suggest you turn a blind eye to Grevillea flexuosa, Conospermum acerosum, Conospermum glumaceum, Conospermum stoechadis subsp. sclerophyllum, Conospermum incurvum and Stirlingia simplex for now.
 * Hesperian 03:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

''Don't worry. The only articles I tend to politely stalk you over are those you extend or create. Feel free to stalk me over to some of my current work, though. Circeus 03:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think being stalked is under-rated. When I was working on politics articles, Rebecca used to stalk me something chronic. Never failed to find a stupid spelling error, if not something worse. It was much appreciated, and so is yours. All of the above articles have been created or extended by me this week. Methinks your stalking would be much improved if you were to put User:Hesperian/Contributions on your watchlist. I always provide informative edit summaries, so you won't even have to check the diffs. Hesperian 03:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, Hesperian's edit summaries are fairly useful, so I seldom click on the articles any more. My edit summaries for new articles generally say, "Please format, please check, please add references, or pleade copyedit."  I'm always pleasantly surprised that most of my edits on obscure topics get formated and edited by plant editors.  Please, for the love of Darwin, don't anyone stop stalking me on Wikipedia.  KP Botany 03:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Édifice Price GA pass
Congratulations on an excellent copyedit on the suggestions provided. I have now passed Édifice Price as a Good Article, and have updated the templates on the article talk page. You may wish to copy the following template:   and paste it to somewhere suitable (such as your user page). It will produce the following userbox

and add you to the category "Good Article contributors".

It's been a pleasure working with you, and well done! EyeSerene TALK 16:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Christmas trees
Hey! Thanks for the fix on the table in Christmas tree cultivation, I think that's the first time I ever used one in an article, so it was kind of messy, just tried to follow instructions on the help page, not bad I guess for a first try. IvoShandor 20:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

please explain more fully...
I see you were the nominator here.

For other kinds of deletion I believe it is a conventional courtesy to give a heads-up to the person who created the article, image, whatever.

Is this not a conventional courtesy for templates? If so is there some reason why you do not follow this convention?

I am not happy that I did not have an opportunity to participate in the discussion prior to the deletion.

Geo Swan 02:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Questionable aspects of your nomination
I left a message for the closing admin. I asked them which of the criteria the policy states make a template eligible for deletion this template satisfied.

I urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to fully comply with the deletion policies
I thought you might offer me a meaningful explanation as to why you didn't give me a heads-up -- or that you might offer me an apology.

With regard to your suggestion, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGeo_Swan&diff=156196762&oldid=156085074 ''Feel free to go to Wikipedia:Deletion review. That's why it's there, after all''.] -- have you ever instantiated a deletion review? Do you know how much work it is?

The first time I went to deletion review was for Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism.

I created this article after many attempts to introduce coverage of the allegations of terrorism to the Tablighi Jamaat article. At the time I introduced this coverage this section was the only section of that article that had any references. Admirers of the movement kept removing that section, either without any explanation, or with the explanation that the allegations were flimsy, ridiculous, baseless, ignored that one of the founding principles of the movement was a commitment to stay out of politics  All arguments for excision that I am sure you recognize are not valid, as the allegations referenced verifiable, authoritative sources.

By this time I had about three dozen references to include in the article. I created the empty table first. And another wikipedian nominated it for speedy deletion, mere minutes after it creation.

This did not comply with the recommendation in the policy.

I placed a hangon on the article, and went to the talk page to explain why I didn't think speedy deletion was appropriate. When I finished my note I found that a hasty administrator had already deleted the article -- in spite of my placement of the hangon tag.

So I initiated a deletion review, my first ever. Maybe if I had a more Zen-like attitude this would have consumed just a few hours. But abuse of procedure, upsets me. I had to wait several days before I could complete my work.

The admin who closed the drv opened Articles for deletion/Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism as soon as they closed the drv. I think, since the consensus that the nominator and closing admin used bogus criteria, the admin who closed the drv could have used some discretion and waived the afd.

This should have been an open and shut drv. Yet, it consumed days of IRL time, and dozens of hours of aggravation. Even drv that should be open and shut can place an enormous drain on wikipedians. Not just the energy of those who contributed to the article, but the time of those who participate in the discussion(s).

The point of this story is to illustrate how important it is to comply with procedure. All of this wasted energy could have been avoided if the nominator and closing admin had complied more closely with policy.

I wrote most of this before I had rechecked your user page, and realized you were an administrator.

I was shocked to learn you are an administrator. I am still shocked. I am shocked to learn that you administer policies, when, if I understood your note on my talk page -- you aren't really familiar with them.

Candidly, Geo Swan 06:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

FLC
Hello! You edited Neutral Milk Hotel discography, which is currently a Featured List Candidate, but didn't voice a an opinion on the article on its nomination page. I was wondering if you could vote or comment on the article, especially considering your prior experience with Featured Lists. Even an oppose would be a major boost in my efforts to get this list featured. (I saw the notice on the top of your talk page saying not to ask for updates related to FLCs that you'd commented on, but you haven't yet voted on this one so I decided to ask you about it anyway. If I've bugged you at all, many apologies). Much thanks, --Brandt Luke Zorn 03:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you know...

 * No problem, and congratulations on the DYK! Biruitorul 18:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding headers
I remember you editing a list in my watchlist with the summary saying that a list needed a header. (i.e. just before the actual table). Is there a specific policy somewhere that states this? Or is it more of an undiscussed convention? I ask because i added in a header to the List of West Bromwich Albion F.C. managers article remembering your edit. It has subesquently been reverted and i would like your opinion. Thanks. Woodym555 17:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that did make a lot of sense. The trouble with the West Brom article was the fact that i was future proofing it. At the moment it has a two sentence lead. That will soon be expanded to meet the standard set by the FL criteria and the WP:LEAD criteria. Until then there is no need to have the separate header i suppose. If it comes up to FLC in the future, which i predict it will, then i will comment on it. Thanks for your input. It has been most enlightening!! Woodym555 18:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The Make-Up discography FLC
Based on your comments on the FLC candidacy of Ian Svenonius discography a few weeks ago, I've split the article up a bit. The first of those articles, The Make-Up discography, is currently at FLC (nom page here), and has been there for almost three weeks now and has only garnered one support vote. I know you don't owe me anything based on your last review, but I was still wondering if I can beg your attention to the new FLC, since it seems to be going nowhere fast. I don't think it'll fail just on lack of responses, but god knows how long that'll take. Either way, thanks for a good review of the Ian Svenonius discography: it was definitely for the better. Drewcifer 10:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Planetary nebula luminosity function
Hello Circeus,

Thanks for your interest in Planetary nebula luminosity function, however, your change has undone the references split which you state is not needed.

The reason for the split is to mix footnoting for inconspicuous citations together with the Harvard reference style. One aspect of that style is to have the references to appear in alphabetical, which your change loses. This style of citations is consistent with most of the other wiki articles on Planetary Nebulae and Protoplanetary nebulae. Normally, the wiki process is to follow the ref style of the original author, in this case me.

Therefore, I am planning to revert your change. If you feel strongly about this, let's discuss it further before deviating from the style I have already established in this article.

Thanks.

WilliamKF 03:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

IPA-inspired capitals
I don't understand why Ħ should stay in the list of IPA-inspired capitals. Given the context, I can only assume that "Other IPA-inspired capitals supported by Unicode include Ɓ/Ƃ Ƈ Ɗ/Ƌ Ə/Ǝ Ɠ Ħ Ɯ Ɲ Ɵ Ʈ Ʊ Ʋ Ʒ." on International Phonetic Alphabet means that those capital letters didn't exist until a language adopted the IPA character and needed a capital version. --Avxxv 14:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Onlyinclude
You added the Help:Magic words to the Alpha Phi Alpha article in 3 separate parts. I reviewed the magic words page but I still can't determine what this accomplishes. Can you explain here for me?--Ccson 15:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

tocstates
mea culpa....i didn't see what you were doing until too late. --emerson7 | Talk 18:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * that's cool. you'll notice i made that template just a couple days ago in response to Template:ListByUSStateTOC which for some reason i had an immediate visceral response of hate. i thought i did a search to see if one already existed, but i obviously missed something. cheers! --emerson7 | Talk 18:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

lol! i don't know...i guess it has a place somewhere....but i just can't imagine where. --emerson7 | Talk 20:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyediting references
Wow, thanks! Do you have a tool that does all that? Melchoir 20:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Pop culture reverts
Hey Circeus,

Thanks for the pop culture reverts on multiple dinosaur articles. I had reverted a few, but had to go offline for a while. Nice to see someone else monitoring these for cruft. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester  20:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Unreferencedsection
Icon removal, Thanks :) you just beat me to it. Jeepday (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup template
Hi, I like the new templates, but there are some extra returns in cleanup in the categories area which are causing it not to stack properly. – Basar (talk · contribs) 06:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

icons
Why are you removing the icons on the templates? ViperSnake151 20:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

COI2
We have COI for all the non-notable COI articles. COI2 is worded differently for COI situations where the subject is notable. The wording of these templates was discussed at length. Please help out at WP:COIN and see how these are used. Happy editing. - Jehochman Talk 02:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Graphics Lab
The SVG preview is back to normal again, I would ask if you could look at the icons > Rugby471 talk &#9876; 16:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia in Webcomics / Mentioning Wikipedia in Passing
(In reference to this edit) "To mention something in passing" is a common notion in English, and goes closer to the essence of why comics were put in that section rather than your replacement phrase "Comics indirectly related to Wikipedia". We should always try and word things better, but a history comment that says "Simplify wording of section title, remove off-topic template" would have been more informative as to what you did, as well as not offend the original author (me). Not a big deal, but I'd actually like to see this section axed rather than see it grow... they were comics I pulled out of the original list because I really felt grounds for their inclusion was weak. So I'm putting back the off topic tag and what I'd like people to consider is whether we need it at all before it grows. It's tenuous as it is to have a big list of comics people get into by referencing Wikipedia, and already prolific webcomic authors are writing comics about getting linked to. So we might as well have the bar for inclusion set a little higher, like "someone has to be able summarize a wikipedia-related plot point on this page", right? I tried to give the section a meaningful title without using "in passing" but to be honest, I think I had the semantics right the first time. Metaeducation 03:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Wollstonecraft and ISBNs
Thank you for reading Letters Written in Sweden, Norway and Denmark. As I am going to be submitting a series of Mary Wollstonecraft articles for a featured topic, I would appreciate it if you would either change all the ISBNs across all of the MW "Works" pages mentioned in the MW template or resist the temptation to change the style on this one page. It would be best if all the pages were standardized stylistically when I submitted them for the featured topic, I think. If you want to change them all, I have no objection, just please change all the articles. Thanks! Awadewit | talk  04:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Their Representative Colors
Leave their representative colors alone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.23.57 (talk) 17:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Question
Hi, a user has opposed this FLC based solely on the fact that the articles that make up the list are, for the most part, of poor quality. Since you are an FLC regular, I was wondering if you would mind taking a look and leaving some comments. Thanks, Scorpion0422 23:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As well, I was doing my regular promotion/failing rounds and I'm not sure what to do with the FLC for Puerto Ricans Missing in Action in the Korean War as your comments seem to have more to do with the articles notability rather than how it matches up against FL criteria. There is strong support for it, but if you still oppose, I really have no choice but to fail it due to a lack of consensus. -- Scorpion0422 23:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * ... So, it would be okay to pass both lists? And I wasn't asking you to vote, I just wanted to know your opinion. -- Scorpion0422 23:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for clarifying that. Finally, would you mind making the pass/fail decision on this FLC when it reaches 10 days? I usually pass/fail my own FLCs, but in this case there isn't a clear consensus, so I would feel uncomfortable making the call in that case. -- Scorpion0422 23:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Where's List of Publications on Evolution and Human Behavior?
Hi. I noticed that you recently deleted this article and moved it. I certainly understand the reasoning. I can't find where it was moved to, though. Could you leave a link on my talk page? Thank-you. EPM 17:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Asser
Thanks for the refs cleanup! I really appreciate it; it's great to have you do such a fiddly job without even being asked. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk) 01:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, is there any chance you could do your patented refs clean-up on another article of mine? It's Beyond Fantasy Fiction, which is at FAC now (here is the nom).  I was going to have a crack at it myself, but it has several  and  templates, and I'm not sure how best to convert those to the simplified format.  Any help would be much appreciated; and of course if you don't have time, no problem.  Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Another pride animal
Yep - I concede that sometmes starting from scratch is warranted. I'm working up Superb Fairy-wren and prbably then Variegated Fairy-wren for FAC, but some old prose in the former on communal breeding etc. is giviing me a headache. Trying to photograph teh little blighters is sooooo tricky.....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Zoon a typo for zoo?
Hey when this popped up at the beginning of the Subspecies ection of lion I was perplexed - is it just a typo for zoo? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not, Cas. The definition is here. It doesn't appear to be in wide usage. Firsfron of Ronchester  15:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, Circeus. :) Firsfron of Ronchester  21:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikignome Award
I hereby award this wikignome award to Circeus for help in chiselling away at the mighty lion, which is now featured. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

vegtable oils
sorry i listed that wrong. I saw the red and thought it was delisted. WOuld it be possible to mark them as green if kept? The Placebo Effect 21:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Perna viridis
Thanks for removing the white space. Maybe it was a left-over from Word. I edited the article there prior to cut pasting it here. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 09:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

B. s. var. spinulosa
There was a discussion on WP:PLANTS a little while ago, the outcome of which appeared to be that my practice of abbreviating specific epithets in infrageneric taxa is not kosher. Apparently only generic epithets may be abbreviated - all other parts must be spelled out in full. Sorry, I can't point you to the discussion at the moment, but if I find a diff later I will. Hesperian 04:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, my mistake. I thought you have abbreviated them. Hesperian 05:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not that you need it, but . Hesperian 05:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

FAC help:
Hi Circeus! I've recently commented on Featured article candidates/Leonardo da Vinci, and referred the nominator there to you (Don't know if she'll use you though). She also said she needed to know about how to do something with the citations/footnotes, and I remembered you did something similar when copyediting Kertesz, so thought she might benefit from your aid. Anyway, I don't care if you do or don't, but just thought if you wanted to help her out or not. I'm busy with Vampire anyway, so a lot of work to be done! :) Did you see Cas getting lion featured?! Amazing eh? Hate to admit it, but it's one of the best biological FAs or even one of the best FAs I've ever seen. Apart from yours of course Circeus! If you have any; I'm not sure... Anyway, cheers... :) Spawn Man 07:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you think I'm being lame or is it a valid issue...
See here, I'd support but for this one bit...any thoughts? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Orkney islands
Many thanks for your support and indeed help. Also, my apologies. Somehow (a slip of the keyboard?) I accidentally stopped watching the list a couple of days ago. Thus, I failed to see your edits to the references, which shortly afterwards I in part reverted. This may well have seemed rude without an explanation. A related secondary issue is that I remain somewhat unclear about what WP:MOS does and does not want in references, but unless you feel so inspired I don't want to waste any more of your time. Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

re: cite book nooks and crannies
Thanks for the tips. And, yes we are aiming for a featured topic (more info here) and we are very close. We have seven that are pretty much ready for an FLC and only 2 that really need work. I guess the FLC regulars must be getting pretty tired of seeing trophy articles, but it really can't be helped. The main pages wouldn't have enough content to reach GAC, so that's why we can't have a Hart Trophy and List of Hart Trophy Winners article. I know you have some experience in the FTC area, would we have any chance with a "Stanley Cup" mini FT that just included articles relating to the physical cup itself - Stanley Cup, Traditions and anecdotes associated with the Stanley Cup and List of Stanley Cup champions, or would that be a too poorly defined topic? -- Scorpion0422 22:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the traditions article was just thrown in there for possible completeness, but I doubt it will be included when we are ready. And, actually, length only part of the reason why the four "optional ones" aren't being included. We decided that they shouldn't be included because they aren't awarded at the year end NHL Awards, they aren't listed in the trophy section at NHL.com or Legendsofhockey.net and there is no physical award/trophy for any of them. -- Scorpion0422 22:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Frank L. Smith Bank
Your always there with those little fixes on my DYK noms that I am terrible at catching in my own work. For your efforts, so that you know they are appreciated (by more than I, of this I am certain), knowing that I have no idea if you care for these: IvoShandor 05:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have heard this too, can't remember where, some oddball website probably. Nothing I have consulted thus far mentions it though. The only book I actually own on the subject makes but a brief mention of the bank (that's the Heinz book). I will keep looking. IvoShandor 05:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's awesome to hear, if you come across any good sources on Christmas tree cultivation in Quebec let me know, I am working on a piece about Christmas tree production in Canada and it is woefully light on info about Quebec, a place I hear is known as a leader in Canadian Christmas tree production. Coverage of hard, core topics, like history, and agriculture are underrepresented around here for the most part so I am happy to to my part, glad to hear others, such as yourself, are striving for this too. IvoShandor 05:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks, maybe being Canadian you can also navigate government websites better than I, as I didn't even know the names of some of the government ministries involved with the topic. Anyway, thanks, just let me know if you find anything. By the way, where did you hear that claim about the Smith Bank being the only of the three Wright banks still operating as a bank? IvoShandor 05:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, it was probably here on Wiki that I saw it. The bank's own literature doesn't even state it, so I suspect it isn't true. As an aside, I know you saw this picture, I was astonished by my timing and luck, what an encyclopedic shot! :) IvoShandor 05:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Authentic Science Fiction inline comments
Circeus, thanks for the assistance on Authentic; I was interested to hear you used to be an sf reader. I am hoping to do a few more of these -- I'm an sf magazine collector and have quite a few refs so they're pretty easy to put together. With regard to your inline comments: Thanks for all the edits -- I'm always delighted when I see your name on my watchlist for an article I've been working on. Mike Christie (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "The quality of material submitted to Tubb was extremely low": I fixed this with a quote from Ashley.
 * "these were clearly influenced by the US artist Chesley Bonestell, but were fairly successful.": the intention was to indicate that they may have been seen as derivative, rather than fresh and original, but they were still quite successful. However, I don't think that nuance adds much, so I've changed it to "and were fairly successful".
 * "The price began as 1/6 (one shilling and six pence)": there is no currency symbol that I'm aware of for the old English currency. You can see on the magazine covers that prices were given as "1/6" and "2/-" for a shilling and sixpence and two shillings respectively.  Prices in pounds, shillings and pence would be quoted with the pound sign: "£3/19/-", for example.  This wasn't done for prices below a pound, though.  The currency was known as "L.S.D.", but those weren't used as prefixes (they stood for librae, secundii, and denarii, if I recall correctly).  I did look at what seems to be the relevant MOS page, [of Style (dates and numbers)#Currencies|here], and it doesn't say anything useful.  So I'm not sure whether I can do more here.  I left your comment in place in case someone else can think of a better solution.
 * Content note: yes, that's an improvement. I removed your comment.