User talk:Curtis Clark/Archive 5

Regarding your use of bitch

Hi Curtis. You recently reverted a change on Doberman pinscher because "'bitch' and 'dog' are the correct terms (just as 'mare' and 'stallion' would be for horses)." Do you think "bitch" is more correct than "female"? If not, then the change is arbitrary and violates wikipedia guidelines. I'd argue that bitch is no more appropriate, as it has not been integrated into common use, nor is it used in scientific publications on canids. Further, every definition of bitch that I could find said "female dog"; female is the superordinate category to which bitch belongs, and in the context of canines, it contains no further information. "Female" seems more generally accepted, is a more general common-use term, and doesn't have any negative associations. Do you disagree? --Thesoxlost (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree completely. The article is stable, and changing "bitch" to "female" is either arbitrary or censorship. I suspect the latter, since you mention negative connotations, and you don't seem to have the same issue with "dog" (or even "mare"). You speak of Wikipedia policy, but Wikipedia is not censored. The words "bitch" and "dog" are in common use among dog fanciers for expressing the sex of an animal (at least in the US; I don't have data for other English-speaking countries), and the terms are used by many of the article's references.

I don't go around changing "male" and "female" to "dog" and "bitch" in stable articles, and I'd appreciate it if the bitch-censors would have the same courtesy.--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Changes to wikipedia articles that are motivated by the principles outlines in wikipedia guidelines are not instances of censorship. You say that you disagree, but you did not disagree with any of my points. It has not been integrated into common (lay person) use, nor is it used in scientific publications. It is used in breeding, in the context of "bitch" and "stud," but thats hardly the common usage. If you search for "bitch" on wikipedia, or on the internet, you find that the derogative use has become dominant. Please see the discussion at Talk:Dog#Use of term bitch and weigh in if you have a substantive justification for the use of bitch above female. If for no other reason than for consistency across wiki articles, all females should be changed to bitch or vise versa. Lets get a consensus. --Thesoxlost (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Curtis, you recently said:

My perception is colored when I see "female" used in a summary of a breed standard for dogs: I assume it has been sanitized, and that there is no assurance that it accurately represents the original document in any respect. Note that this is my perception; in many cases, I would find it hard to get evidence to back it up.

I understand that this is your perception, but it is ridiculous and I would suggest that you would be wise to change it. The UKC standards use the term "female", not "bitch." Do you feel that the UKC standards are censored, and that all aspects of them are questionable? I haven't thoroughly checked all kennel clubs, but I can't believe that the UKC is unique in this regard. As a fellow UCD grad, my guess is that you are an intelligent person who does not think the UKC standards are suspect. I don't want to think that your comment was a quick, flippant retort that wasn't thoroughly thought out, so I hope you'll clarify. --Thesoxlost (talk) 05:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It was as flippant as I hoped yours was. I'd like to believe that your overall intent is to improve the encyclopedia, but your dredging up psychological theory and profanity suggests that you have a specific issue with "bitch", an issue with which I disagree. In my lifetime, I have seen both "queer" and "Indian" (sensu Native American) become pejorative, and then be reclaimed by queers and Indians (I am neither, but I know those who legitimately support their reclamation). I'd hate to think that "bitch" needed to be reclaimed, but evidently I am wrong about that.--Curtis Clark (talk) 06:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Good examples. Queer is not used as a synonym for homosexual in wikipedia. For instance, it is not said that Dag Hammarskjold was suspected of being queer; he was suspected of being homosexual. The term was "taken back" in defiance by the gay community specifically because it was offensive. Are you suggesting that the female dog community is going to embrace the offensive word bitch in an act of defiant self-empowerment?

No, I'm saying I hope it hasn't come to that.--Curtis Clark (talk) 19:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Curtis, my original post was not flippant. I use the term bitch on a daily basis, but never for a dog. When I hear it used to refer to a dog, it makes me cringe; its as if I called one of your family members a cunt, and then tried to defend it by saying that it has an alternate, technically correct usage. Take a walk down to the psychology department and ask any social psychologist about framing effects or implicit biases, or priming effects. There are thousands of studies on these topics, and they have very real consequences. Talk to John Bargh at Yale, or Mahzarin Banaji at Harvard, or Susan Fiske at Princeton, or any educated psychologist at any major university. Ask them if they would use the word niggardly in any context; they will "dredge up psychological theory" in saying "no." Try to tell them that the word isn't profanity. Seriously. --Thesoxlost (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm shocked—I'm not being facetious, and now I better understand where you're coming from. I never use the word "bitch" in any context other than a female dog, or quoting someone else; your implied use is sexist, and worse, imprecise, and it's a word I started avoiding in that context long before I got into dogs. (It occurs to me that "bitch" is also a verb, meaning to complain, and I do use it in that context, but I don't think that's what you mean.) That you find situations for using it on a daily basis makes me wonder if there isn't a greater disconnect between us than the use of the word "bitch".--Curtis Clark (talk) 19:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough; That was hyperbole. I don't use the word daily, but I am exposed to it daily and not offended. I think you're right that this is the crux of our disagreement: The term, in the derogatory sense, has really pervaded American culture. TV shows frequently use the term without censorship, even prime time network television; its used online; its used in music. It's pretty ubiquitous. Most of the time it isn't offensive. Some times its used in a sexist way, but most the time it is not. It's frequently used to refer to men. There are a few good op-ed pieces floating around about the change in the meaning of the word to refer to males. In popular culture, the word is common but has lost its power. But it can still be used in an offensive way: one would never refer to someone they care about by this term. Thats why it makes me cringe. Perhaps because your shielded from it, you don't think of the pejorative as the dominant meaning, and don't get offended. But I'd argue for a vast majority of wiki readers, who are widely exposed to popular culture, they activate the pejorative, dominant meaning. I'd also argue that this is the reason why no one refers to their pet (non-show) dog that way. If there are 100 people at a dog park, 99% of them won't refer to their own dog as a bitch because they love the dog, and would never refer to anything they loved with the derogatory term, even if it is technically accurate. --Thesoxlost (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sheltered from it, which is why I assumed your hyperbole was a factual statement. :-)--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Real people use real words, and the correct term for a female dog is bitch, just as tom refers to a(n unneutered) male cat, and queen to a(n unneutered) female cat, and kitten to a baby cat. -- Evertype·✆ 07:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 07:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Bad Curtis

This has got to be the lamest freaking edit summary I've seen in a while, meaning of course that I'm jealous that I didn't think of it first. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm always forgetting to make edit summaries on talk pages, and I guess it all came out at once.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks. --KP Botany (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Where have you been?...I really really really hope you are becoming active again of Wikipedia, it needs you. Hardyplants (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Mutual acquaintances

Cool. Frank was on my doctoral committee. I ran into him in April, learned that he had gone to Cal Poly Pomona. Guettarda (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I must thank you for your honesty and civility (I would have chosen were based on for a past consensus, but I can live with this), so rare, unfortunately, on both sides of this discusssion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

And I'd like to thank you for being the only one of the three proponents of changing the guideline to have made a good-faith effort at wordsmithing an alternative.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I do not consult with Born2Cycle; we have fundamental disagreements, for which see WT:NC (settlements). But I am trying to get one small thing done, and high on my wishlist is that he would stop dropping clangers. (I'll take good cop, bad cop if it works, though.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Native Countries of North America edit conflict

Hi Curtis; it appears we were on the same path, blindfolded by the necessarily lengthy edits to this bloated page; I just spent oh, maybe 45 minutes, trying to clean it up and collided with your edits, which appear to include new information so I didn't just want to copy-paste my changes over the edit; I have to go out now, spent too much time on Wikipedia already this morning, but please note desired changes: all external links should be hidden with "ref" tags, all wikipedia extlihks should just be deleted, and the extraneous and redundant - and highly OR/neologistic repititions of "Country"- especially neologistic if capitalized! - should all be removed; they're all redundant anyway; I also made some notes about Huronia, which referred to southern Ontario but is now part of the Haudenosaunee/Ganienkehaka after the wars of extermination waged against the Hurons by the Iroquois. there's a lot of redundant entries within the the Anishinaabe and Abenaki and other groupings; maybe this should be a sortable table with various columns. I guess I should have just done three or four at a time but I was also formatting on the fly - the entries should be bulleted and the bolding method would work better if the ;semi-colon at the start of the line was used for each "country" title and sub-bullets used for the translation and any commentary and refs. Also "Gwaii" is not "land" but "islands" and the actual meaning of the ancient name is "islands (shifting) in and out of sight" - "edge of the world" is a pop-neologism; Haida Gwaii was only coined about 1976. The Comancheria is a region conquered and occupied by the Comanche, it was not hteir homeland, and it was also the Apacheria beforehand; in the Terre des huasteseques entry on Huastec it's not Spanish, it's French....damn I did a lot of changes that I now can't even copy over into a big ref-hide here because I'd bulleted them and it's too cumbersome to copy-paste.....I guess I should have put "under construction" on this while I was doing that; oh well, it's time for lunch and I've got to go live real life. Please give some thought to the changes I was working on and do what you can with them. See the move/rename section on the talklpage also. thanks.Skookum1 (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

My main aim is to make sure no information is deleted at this point, just hidden or moved to the talk page. I agree that much of this is poorly referenced and that there are other issues (which I'm sure you're cleaning up), but some of this information may not otherwise exist online, and I'd hate to see it disappear forever, even if the references don't meet Wikipedia standards.--Curtis Clark (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I have nothing to hide. My edit history should make it clear that I'm a consistent promoter of consistency in Wikipedia article naming, particularly with respect to adherence to the common name convention. For example, check out this discussion I started at the talk page of WP:NC just before the flora issue was brought to my attention. There is also this earlier discussion. It was there that I first started writing about what I then called problem #4 of predisambiguation - creates "orphans" - articles at predisambiguated titles without appropriate links/references from the undisambiguated name. The flora practice of using the "predisambiguated" scientific name is prone to this, and that's all I was trying to illustrate.

Anyway, I think and care deeply about this stuff, perhaps too much so. As to the question of whether I'm a troll, consider this: The basic mindset of a troll is that they are far more interested in how others react to their edits than in the usual concerns of Wikipedians: accuracy, veracity, comprehensiveness, and overall quality. If a troll gets no response to their spurious edits, then they can hardly be considered a troll at all.

I'm the opposite of that. My main interest is overall quality in terms of naming consistency, and I probably couldn't care much less (if anything, I should probably care more) about how people react to my posts. It is true that my position on common names often upsets others, but that's an unfortunate byproduct of my position, not the reason I hold it.

As to the cabal comment on another user's talk page, that was a term I borrowed from someone else to refer to editors of any given group of articles who tend to be biased towards giving naming consistency within their group a higher priority than being consistent with the more general guidelines. I've seen this at U.S. cities, TV episodes, ships, and other areas too. At least I had the sense to not use that term on the flora page. Unfortunately someone saw it anyway and took it personally, which I did not intend. I regret that, FWIW.

Anyway, thanks for reaching out and bringing your concerns about my behavior to my attention on my talk page. I appreciate your motivations and the civility with which you convey them in what I know to be a frustrating situation.

There is no reason why we shouldn't be able to disagree and yet remain civil with each other. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Roadkill

Botanists preparing to engage the anti-intellectuals using the tools at their disposal (stallion says, "Where are the mares?")

A Gala Coupé, 17th century; Royal Museums of Art and History, Brussels

It's nice to see the plant editors doing some useful work around here for once.[1] Happy New Year. --KP Botany (talk) 07:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought about calling it Bestiae mortuae, but figured I'd get pushback.--Curtis Clark (talk) 07:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

For some vehicles that would be appropriate. --KP Botany (talk) 07:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Dog experts

I bow to your expertise in that area. Really bad half-pun intended. --KP Botany (talk) 05:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

We have a toy fox terrier that most people mistake for a chihuahua. Our dobie is supposed to be the guard dog, but she prefers to let the other dogs handle it.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I like little dogs. My next one will be small enough to obnoxiously carry around in a purse with me. --KP Botany (talk) 06:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

on the bright side

This discussion has greatly clarified my thinking and phrasing around the whole issue of common names e.g. [2]. Hesperian 04:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Perfect!--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Aquilegia formosa

Hi Curtis, the reference actually does state what I added, except on the next page, p. 62. I'm not sure if you missed it, or if there was another reason that you moved the footnote. Either way, no biggie, but just wanted to be sure you weren't missing something (or that I'm not missing something....). What do you think of that book as a reference by the way? Your expertise would be appreciated. Thanks. First Light (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I did miss it, because I didn't look (sorry); I've reverted myself. I've heard of the book (generally positive), but I have no experience with it myself, and didn't even know it was on Google Books.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Google books is close to being a library, except they blank a lot of pages—though the search function makes up for that. But for a layman like myself, it's sometimes hard to know what's reliable, except by looking at the publisher. First Light (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Just in case it's not already on your watch list

War elephant. --KP Botany (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art

First off, I apologize for the spam. You are receiving this message because you have indicated that you are in Southern California or interested in Southern California topics (either via category or WikiProject).

I would like to invite you to the Los Angeles edition of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art, a photography scavenger hunt to be held at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) on Saturday, February 28, 2009, from 1:00 to 7:00 PM. All photos are intended for use in Wikipedia articles or on Wikimedia Commons. There will be a prize available for the person who gets the most photos on the list.

If you don't like art, why not come just to meet your fellow Wikipedians. Apparently, we haven't had a meetup in this area since June 2006!

If you are interested in attending, please add your name to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art#Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Please make a note if you are traveling to the area (train or plane) and need transportation, which can probably be arranged via carpool, but we need time to coordinate. Lodging is as of right now out of scope, but we could discuss that if enough people are interested.

Thank you and I hope to see you there! howcheng {chat} 23:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL and Okey dokey

Your reaction saddens me a bit, but I respect it. I hope your tongue was firmly in cheek when you mentioned OUR (grin) very dear mutual friend, was it not? (ducking and running) You must be aware of the [Tumbeweed crisis, eh? (wink) =:-O Montanabw^(talk) 00:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hell, I'm a member in good standing of the tumbleweed crisis! I try to get along with everyone, but I'm seldom successful.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Good luck. You probably know you'll need it. (smile) I understand there was a related Joshua Tree crisis? I believe that there was a similar crisis over Popular Culture, Weymouth, and if you carefully look at the history of the disambiguation of Ireland, which just went through a highly contentious mediation, you might note who originally kicked that beehive. I think all of wikiproject disambiguation is in an uproar too, last I lurked. Note a pattern. BOTH KP Botany AND Born2Cycle BOTH are separately spatting with another person, the same person, but I think over different articles... well, I kind of know where you are coming from on the horse articles, because I have decided not to weigh in on any of the above, and have never been so glad to labor in my own obscure corner of wikiland. Deep breaths. I almost quit for good after that AN/I thing, but am glad I didn't. Wiki IS just a really big city, takes all types. I have to keep reminding myself of that... Montanabw^(talk) 23:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

A big city, yes. I think both of us should spend less time hanging out at the courthouse and the trauma center. :-) You may have noticed that KP Botany and Born2cycle were spatting with each other as well.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I DID notice that, which is why I am so amused that they have something (or someone) in common! LOL! Um, we hang out at the courthouse and trauma center? Oh oh... um, would our real life professions have any influence on where we go on wiki? Oops! I try really really hard to NOT bring my profession into wiki (I deliberately do NOT edit anywhere close to my real life paid work!) but something must be slipping...oh dear!  :-P Montanabw^(talk) 21:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Why, Curtis, that's the nicest word you've ever used for it.

I also avoid editing in my area of expertise, Montanabw. Except for plant common names, but there it's not really editing: I do just spat, and copy and paste, and concede the brilliance of early twentieth century google book references. I have tried editing in my area of expertise, even just adding references, and they've all been reverted, argued over, and removed. Or worse, I was accused of vandalism for suggesting that volcanoes have something to do with plate tectonics.... Montanabw, you're smarter than I.  :) --KP Botany (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It was Montanabw's word, actually.

Oh, that's why it sounded so nice.... --KP Botany (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I used to be paid to be a botanist; now that I'm not, maybe that's why I can get away with editing. (I avoid editing web design articles; anyone can find out what Eric Meyer, for example, has to say without reading about it on Wikipedia. Botany, not so much.)

KP, it would be just perfect if ScienceApologist had reverted you, because he thinks volcanoes are "fringe science".--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, he probably does for all I know. Some Wikipedia editors give so much more credibility to fringe theories out of their fear that people cannot think for themselves that they greatly increase the publicity of the fringes. Look up some pseudoscience on google, and what do you find? Reems of Wikipedia discussion pages, AN/Is, RfCs all about the pseudo-science. And the Wikipedia editors look really really worried--they don't look knowledgeable or professional or competent, just worried and freaked out. It sickens me. There's a claim on one of the plant articles now that scientists can detect down to the zero molecule level--this made up, probably, by the group that ScienceApologist edits with, on the mistaken belief that only by saying there are zero molecules of a substance in a homeopathic remedy can Wikipedia editors discredit homeopathy. Since when is it the job of Wikipedia to discredit pseudo science?

As if no one in the technical literature on medicine has ever discredited homeopathy? Why does anyone think they have to make up angry, ridiculous, and false counter-pseudo-science to discredit homeopathy?

I'm sure the next claim will be that placebos have been proven not to work since they also have been examined to the zero-molecule detection limit.

--KP Botany (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --KP Botany (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I feel for you guys who try to deal with real science. The fringe theory problem exists throughout Wikipedia. God knows (as does poor Curtis) that I have a lot of fringe stuff to deal with, (and it makes me really really snarky at times) but at least all I have to deal with on the science end are the creationists who occasionally invade the evolution of the horse article. Oh yeah, and a delightful conversation at Talk:Equestrianism where someone is once again raising the issue of whether horseback riding interferes with, um women's genetalia... :-P  ! (sighing...) You all ought to buy popcorn and watch that amusing little sideshow. For one thing, so far Our Favorite Editor and I are actually on the same side at the moment -- LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 18:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I always thought it was men's genitalia, and that was how to tell if one's seat were correct (if it hurts, it's not). I'll have to check that out, just for the shock value. :-) --Curtis Clark (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that is why men get so hung up on this particular FAQ. And it is a FAQ, nothing fringe about it, so I am helping. Curtis, in case you miss the tiny link among all the chaff, see User:Twinzor/Equestrianism health concerns. --Una Smith (talk) 03:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm gone now. Stirred up enough trouble on Curtis' talk page! Montanabw^(talk) 07:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It's nice to know I'm on so many editors' watchlists and contribution patrols.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you're just so popular and well-liked! Montanabw^(talk) 21:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahhggg! --KP Botany (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just wanted to point out that KP is (to my mind) mischaracterising the debate on the Atropa belladonna page. This seems to be due to some communication issue. Maybe I can explain here: It isn't saying that scientists can "detect down to the zero molecule level", merely that in a 30C preparation there isn't going to be any of the dilutant left (ie no molecules). This is based on maths, not "detection apparatus". It is relevant to the page as the page is about A belladonna, and it is interesting that a. belladonna preparations are 100% (where 99.999r = 100) not going to contain any of the labelled ingredient. This is not a valid argument against homeopathy, as it is the succussion and "memory" or "energy" which is important there. The best argument against homeopathy is that there is no evidence of a clinical effect (beyond placebo). That argument isn't in the article, it is in the homeopathy article where i should be. See the talk page for the discussion. All the best, Verbal chat 15:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No, no, this is User talk:Curtis Clark, tattle-tailing here. --KP Botany (talk) 05:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Roof roof, meOw

I don't remember that Larson. My favorite is the sheep holding a party, the hostess relieved as she opens the door and the sheepdog has finally arrived. Or a couple of hundred others. I'll have to dig out my Larson, or would if I wasn't writing 5 papers, designing a new polishing tool, and studying for 2 midterms and 4 practicals. Any chance you know anything about the properties of flat spring steels? But, right now, a quick article on something missing from Wikipedia, then off to work. --KP Botany (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/images/larson_what_dogs_hear.jpg I couldn't find the one about cats, but cat's don't even pay attention to their names. I tried to make a trigger spring for a revolver back in my teens, and found that tempering spring steel is non-trivial.--Curtis Clark (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

That's why the British new the best way to figure out the French methods was German spies. Or was it the German methods, and French knowledge of British spies? --KP Botany (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your support re disambiguating links to Equidae. --Una Smith (talk) 04:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Curtis for clarifying the matter with a clear, reasoned explanation from someone with recognized expertise on the topic. I'm happy now. Montanabw^(talk) 01:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorraia horse breed

Hi Curtis. Sorraia is in GA review now and needs help re taxonomy and phylogeny. Care to take a look? --Una Smith (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Curtis. I noticed Una Smith's post here, so I just wanted to 2nd it. The review could use another respected opinion, so if you have the time to look it over it would be much appreciated. Thanks! --Thesoxlost (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I was out of town and then ill. I'll take a look maybe later today.--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back, and thanks for weighing in. I hope you are well again. --Una Smith (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The gauntlets are thrown

Oh, well, PBS and B2c have firmly convinced me that nothing but scientific names will ever work for Wikipedia. Here's my suggestion of a centralized discussion location.[3] --KP Botany (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages

Curtis, re your comment on Talk:Wild horse, I wonder about that too. I also wonder why you strongly disagree with my philosophy about disambiguation pages. You don't appear to hold WP:PRIMARYWP:PRIMARYTOPIC in especially high regard. I wonder if it is my philosophy you disagree with, or KP Botany's representation of it. So, would you state what you think my philosophy is, and what yours is? --Una Smith (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how WP:PRIMARY relates. (Of course I disagree with its de-emphasis of what scientists call primary literature.)

What focused me on your supposed philosophy was the statement that you had once suggested London be a dab page. I admit that I never checked to see whether that was true, because there is a certain logic to that level of disambiguation. I've read your discussion on Wild horse and tumbleweed in some depth (especially the latter), and I am aware of your work with plant common name disambiguation. All of this seemed to form a consistent opus, so if I've misconstrued, I apologize.

I see a continuum—I think it would be insane to make London a dab page, and useful if not imperative, to make bindweed a dab page. So one might say that I don't have a philosophy, that I evaluate on a case-by-case basis. In the case of tumbleweed, I think it turned out exactly right. In the case of wild horse, a dab page might ultimately be a solution, but it seems to me there's more to clean up first (the existence of wild dog suggests that it might eventually be needed).

Because I don't have a philosophy about dab pages, I will always oppose you on a case-by-case basis, not on philosophical grounds. :-) --Curtis Clark (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Lar started the London rally cry back in December, KP Botany and Born2Cycle took it up last month, and now KimvdLinde and some others are trying it on for size. It is character assassination by hearsay. It began on Talk:Weymouth, Dorset#Requested move. Lar mentioned London as an example of a primary topic and I replied:[4][5]

:London is a great example of why I am in favor of the disambiguation page having the ambiguous title. London (disambiguation) has a long list of places named London. Given my experience with other cases like this, however, I expect most links needing disambiguation go to the ambiguous title: London. Links needing disambiguation continue to be made, yet because London also has huge numbers of links referencing London, England, we have no effective way of finding those links. Too bad London was not made a disambiguation page years ago; now is much too late.

In the case of London, there being so many links to the intended London, England, it would be necessary to disambiguate huge number of incoming links that already exist before making London a disambiguation page. But if that were done, is there anything intrinsically wrong with making London the disambiguation page? Let's say London (as it now is, about London, England) has 1,000,000 incoming links. What fraction of them are wrong and need disambiguation? There are a lot of other places named London. Is the fraction just 1%? That would be 1,000 wrong links, each sending readers to the wrong article and requiring them to recover. The problem lies in finding that 1% of wrong links among the 1,000,000. Searching for them by hand among the 1,000,000 really would be busywork. And each editor who tried would have to start from scratch, facing 1,000,000 links. By comparison, on a disambiguation page named Weymouth, doing an initial cleanup of incoming links then disambiguating new incoming links would be (is) pretty light work.

So what is my philosophy? I would say like you I take it on a case by case basis, but my threshold for when to make a dab is a little lower than yours. (Not much lower.) Also, in most cases I dislike the displacement of dab pages such as Tumbleweed (disambiguation). Those dab pages help readers recover after following a wrong link, but they don't help to repair wrong links or stop them from being created in the first place. --Una Smith (talk) 10:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think your characterization of character assassination is extreme, but then others have told you that as well.

I still see a clear, consistent philosophy behind your views and actions, one that values accuracy of internal links over the convenience of readers that key in search terms. I see nothing shameful in this at all; of the views on Wikipedia with which I have recently disagreed, it is one of the few that is logically consistent.

I do, however, disagree. I think WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is useful, and I suspect (although I have no evidence) that the use patterns of most readers are better served by clean results for keying in primary topics than in accurate internal links. (If I were the only reader of the encyclopedia, I'd actually prefer your method, since it fits my browsing style better. But then I was the kid who would pick a volume of the World Book Encyclopedia and start reading through it.)--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not value accuracy of internal links over the convenience of readers. Accuracy of internal links contributes to that convenience. I do question the common assumption that putting a primary topic at the base name necessarily confers the greatest convenience. Part of the problem is the lack of any clear metric re what constitutes a primary topic. That is not something that should be prescribed in a top-down manner via policy, and I have no interest in making or changing policy; it is something we should describe from experience if not from statistical data. --Una Smith (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Equus ferus ferus and Tarpan

I have tried to untangle the taxonomy of Equus ferus ferus from the question of what is a Tarpan. The versions prior to Kim's reverts are here and here. Would you take a look and tell me if it works for you? --Una Smith (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Now the venue is Talk:Wild horse. Help! --Una Smith (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That was just what I had in mind. I'll try to post more in the next day or two, but that is a topic and an audience that requires far more effort than most. --Una Smith (talk) 03:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

tarpan holotype

As far as I know, the tarpan lectotype is in the museum in Moscow. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

How about we consolidate this discussion on Talk:Equus ferus ferus? --Una Smith (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It is here: User talk:Una Smith#More tarpans. --Una Smith (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hope everything is well with you, have not seen you around to much recently. Take care. Hardyplants (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern. I was out of town, then briefly ill (norovirus), and all that set me behind at work, so I haven't spent much time at Wikipedia. It's always a relief to know that you and the other plant editors can keep watch for vandalism, contend with the clueless, and contribute to articles without my help. It's a real drag for me to think that I'm indispensable, whether or not it is true. :-) --Curtis Clark (talk) 03:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear that everything is OK except the workload. Your contributions are very important because they are clear and levelheaded and backed with understanding and they are made just at the correct time; a good taskmaster is worth many peons - even though he does not carry many bricks himself, he is indispensable in getting the building done correctly and in a timely fashion.

It's funny you should put it that way, because that somewhat describes my day job: I am manager of a department of five professional staff and two student assistants. My department is responsible for all the university-wide web pages and all the web applications other than our PeopleSoft system and a few other canned systems. The admin assistant to my boss asked me to have someone bring over some paperwork. When I showed up with it myself, she said, "I didn't expect you to do it; I thought one of your staff could bring it over." I responded, "All my staff have real jobs <grin>. I wasn't doing anything, and I didn't want to interrupt them." Sometimes it's important to get out of the way and let the bricks be hauled.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I sympathize with you on the norvirus, I am just getting over some food poisoning (never going to eat a tuna fish sandwich at a gas station again) had me coming and going at both ends, so to speak. (The muscles around my rib cage still hurt when I breath.) Hardyplants (talk) 10:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

gender

No problem, I just do not get upset about those things. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW, here is more info about me: http://www.kimvdlinde.com -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Manzanita

Manzanita? [6] - if you are interested: editing the article, or reverting my change is an adequate answer. cygnis insignis 02:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Perfect. Thanks!--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

And you. Cheers, cygnis insignis 05:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Telling secrets

You should be trout slapped for that. Or we should-or is it I? If I was mean to trout that is. --KP Botany (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Mmmmmm...trout....--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

A request and a question

Hi,
-1. Could you take a look at/comment on an article I wrote, here, before I move it in? It will be my first attempt. There is no page for it yet, but it would link to the Cotoneaster article. Note: I am aware that my article is busy with references, but its better than being empty of them.
-2. When I scoped out the "move" page in lieu of eventually moving my article, it indicated to check/uncheck a box that would (my paraphrase) 'cut all links' with a replacement article (...or some such). It was emphatic to do one or the other, but no such box was visible to me. I don't want to mess anything up, any suggestions?
Please respond at your convenience on my talk page. I found your name in the Wikiproject Plant pages (almost at random), and since your a botanist I thought i'd ask. Thanks, Hamamelis (talk) 08:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hope all is well with you. I know I don't know you, but your absence causes me to wonder if you are alright (?). Anyway, if you happen to read this message, in regards to the original queries above, all went smoothly and I got the answers I needed. In other words: "never mind". Peace - Hamamelis (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

So sorry I didn't respond; your message arrived when I was very busy, and when things let up, I had forgotten that I had never done anything about it. I'm glad you got the assistance you needed.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Predatory pelagic snails

There were some copyvio problems in gastropods when I came across this, that I thought you might appreciate also, if you know nothing about them. Now that's a snail! --KP Botany (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)