User talk:Dr. Submillimeter/Archive Jul 2007

Tip
| Chambers is not a bad online English-English dictionary which might be useful when you are trying to come to a resolve a definition; it has a neat plug-in for Firefox as well. Ephebi 13:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Help
I'm actually working for Ipac and spitzer in their PA office - but I am still getting used to the wikipedia interface. Don't worry, I will be sure to give credit where credit is due :-) --Anzibanonzi 22:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay so I talked about it with my bosses. We just want to upload our image galleries onto wikipedia. Instead we are just going to put them on wikimedia with a link to the press releases that they are associated with. Have at the M81 page, however all of the information was approved by the lead scientists associated with the image. Anzibanonzi 23:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Aerodrome
Hi, could you do me a favour and let me know which bits you think still need the references. I cleaned up some of the page and used the external link to the Canadian act to reference some of it. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks and go ahead and clean it up. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"New" material on Astronomy lacking references
I brought this material over from the old Astrophysics article (still available in history). This material had not been referenced there either, but I didn't feel that the lack of references was reason for expunging this information entirely from Wikipedia, which is what happened when Astrophysics was replaced by a redirect to Astronomy --arkuat (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Affluent cat.
Hi Dr.,

Radiant! closed "affluent" as a "keep"? Or was it a "no consensus"? He generally is not kind to over-categorization, and he knows more about them than I could learn in a million years, so I'd defer to his judgment. Best wishes, Xoloz 19:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well... Going strictly by the book, precedent is no reason for the speedy deletion of categories. Of course, one might employ CSD G4, if one believes "wealthy" is identical to "affluent."  I'm inclined to think so, and wouldn't object if anyone used G4 to delete the cat.  I'm also the tentative type, though, and I wouldn't want to assume control over the question without Radiant!'s input.  He's probably off on holiday for the weekend, so I would prefer to wait.  You are welcome to ask other admins, of course -- there are plenty who are aggressive enough that they might be willing to do this.  Best wishes, Xoloz 20:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I closed it as a "don't hold the same discussion twice simultaneously in different spots" :). Since the earlier deletion was endorsed, this is an obvious recreation, and therefore speedily deletable. Give me a second and it's gone.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Attrib tags
Good point, feel free to remove them and cite me when doing so. &mdash; Rickyrab | Talk 17:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

"Live action" vs "live-action"
This is a minor point, but at Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 5, you endorsed renaming the category with a hyphen. I checked a couple of style guides, and I think there's a slightly stronger case for omitting the hyphen. I would like to invite you to consider the evidence I provided and see if it affects your opinion. If it doesn't, that's ok too. Cheers, Xtifr tälk 09:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Multiple aperture telescopes
Hi,

Just out of interest, why has the category "Multi aperture telescopes" been depleted? There's no explanation on the talk page.

Rnt20 22:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Multiple aperture telescopes
Hi,

I don't mind this category being deleted. I would point out that it was not a redundant category however -- some multiple-aperture telescopes such as XMM-Newton, MAGIC (telescope) etc. are not interferometers, but they are multiple-aperture telescopes. I don't particularly mind the category multiple-aperture telescopes being deleted though, as it's a bit of a random collection of telescopes really. Rnt20 12:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

User categories
As pointed out, you have no policy justification for your edits. I really don't see what else there is to say. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 12:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_11
Fixed it ... there was some weird non-printing character at the end ... I couldn't even see it until I looked at the url of the redcat. -- Prove It (talk) 18:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_6
You wanted to be notified if this was closed as a merge. It was. Thanks for the help. --Kbdank71 13:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization
I'm not saying that tagging all the categories would be the way to go, but if you think that you would want (or need) to do this, I think that it is a task that could be handled by my bot. I think that given a few days advance notice, I might be able to get approval to add a task to allow this activity. If you think that this might be helpful, please let me know and I'll get started with submitting the request so I'll be ready when you are. If you don't think that you want to do it know, but that it might be useful in the future for this or other group noms, I might still make the request. --After Midnight 0001 12:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Question about the WPBiography template at the top of Fritz Zwicky talk page
There is a WPBiography box at the top of the Fritz Zwicky discussion page, and there seems to be scope for people to leave comments there. What kind of comments are appropiate? Lyndon Ashmore, writing as "Cosmic Relief", placed a comment complaining about my changes; and I have placed a brief response. But it occurs to me that this kind of exchange should be in the talk page itself... not in a special comments area. Can you please confirm, and also let me know what the comments in WPBiography are intended for? Thanks. I'll look for an answer right here, where it follow the question for others to read as well. -- Duae Quartunciae 16:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Subway category CFD
Hello there. I've made a suggestion concerning the subway category discussion which may interest you. Best, Mackensen (talk) 21:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

CFD logic
By your CFD logic in the Eagle Scout/DESA/etc cats, we should delete many, many cats (but then someone will invariably object to the subsequent list). By that same logic, all the "year of birth/death" cats should go but yet they are still around. Now, talk about useless cats! Of what use is a cat with thousands of entries that only tell you year of birth/death? Can you explain this dichotomy?Rlevse 20:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Centaurus A/M83 Group
Looks like a good edit overall. It is my feeling that the article does need a listing of the galaxies that aren't included by Karachentsev but which are definitely in the group - I think he only included galaxies that could be placed in one sub-cluster or the others. The new section does need to clear up that Cote's survey was a targeted HI/H-alpha survey of optically-identified sources, which is very different from the way HIPASS, HIDEEP and the de Blok survey worked - I'll add something about that.

The luminosity function is a problem in that there is no Wikipedia article on it. There's an article luminosity function (which is even linked from a few Astro pages) but it's about the sensitivity of the human eye! I'll try and come up with a more PUS-friendly paragraph on it.

My preference is for using the NED primary names, as this is what most people use in their papers so it makes comparisons of lists much, much easier. However if there are good technical reasons otherwise then I'll let that lie. I couldn't find any consensus on naming of galaxies on the Astronomy or Astronomical Objects project sites - it would be good to have a proper convention on this.

I also had a go at trying to track down the source of the redshift for PGC 47885 last night. If this redshift is correct then it isn't in the group, but NED isn't letting on where it got it from and I can't find it in their references! Having recently come across another Karachentsev object (KKR 73) that he puts down as possibly a companion of NGC 7332 at 1300 km/s and which NED has therefore assigned a velocity of 1300 km/s to, I'm somewhat dubious about unreferenced (and even referenced) redshifts from NED! The NED redshift for PGC 45717 has been changed to the HIPASS value (400 km/s) now, which places it within the range of the group. My preference would be to cite individual sources for redshifts rather than NED, and similarly for the optical magnitude which is a mess of different bands and techniques. However, that would be a lot of work!

Cheers, --Robminchin 14:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I chased up the Cen A/M83 references - everybody uses the ESO names rather than the PGC names. This is inkeeping with my experience (which isn't admissable as evidence on Wikipedia of course), which is that the ESO names have about the same status in the southern hemisphere as the UGC names in the north.  Both catalogues have the same selection criteria (1 arcmin diameter) on very similar photographic plates, so the ESO catalogue is essentially the southern equivalent of the UGC.


 * Thanks for the pointer to the naming convention, the only problem I can see (other than mentioning the UGC but not the ESO catalogue) is that 'most commonly used' is not a well-defined term. 'Primary NED identification' is probably as good a definition of 'most commonly used' as is possible without actually going through all the papers that mention an object and taking a tally.


 * The optical redshift for PGC 45717 is said to be wrong by Banks et al., so there's a refereed source for that correction. PGC 47885 is more problematic - I've tracked down the redshift as being from 6df, and it clearly places it outside of the group, but WP:NOR means it can't be removed from the list until someone gets around to noting in a paper that Karachentsev included it wrongly in his list.  The best I can think of is that a note could be added to it saying that this velocity falls outside the velocity range of the group defined by Banks et al. (or some other reference).


 * On a similar topic, my feeling now is that every galaxy that has been claimed to be in the group in a published paper should be listed unless the object has actually been later shown not to meet the criteria (in which case it should still be noted), with the ones not included in Karachentsev's list being placed in a separate list. Not doing so would be to take a side in the discussion about what is the correct criteria for group membership, which would fall foul of WP:NOR again.


 * Igor's cranked the handle of his magic paper-making machine again, and there's now a Karachentsev (2007) on the group. He's now listing 87 galaxies 'in and around the Cen A/M83 complex'.  He's not got any better at naming them in his tables though - one of them is simply called 'HIPASS'!


 * Cheers, --Robminchin 22:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Scouting cats
An essay or project page on "category clutter" would go a long way towards shortening CfDs and keep you from re-inventing the wheel when folks don't understand your goals. See Coatrack or Non-free content/templates for example. When the Scoutlogos template was changed to Non-free Scoutlogos yesterday, I read, understood and agreed with the reasoning for the change (they just did a poor job of notification and implementation).

Looking at Winston Churchill, I see that the categories take up half a screen, so I do see your point. I can also see ways that editors can subvert the category deletions.

Perhaps a more elegant solution here would be to include categories withing a template to show or hide them as desired. They could even be grouped by maintenance or article categories. This would be similar to the template at the bottom of the Churchill article.

Just a few thoughts... --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As I have explained on the page, I read the diffs independently when made & had forgotten "paranoid" was used by Gadget first. Apologies for that. As to wider issues, I am happy to discuss them if you want to. Johnbod 19:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll give you some time to recover from the wrath of the botanists first.... Johnbod 00:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As you seem to be taking a break, I'll wait until you return, as I hope you will. Johnbod 17:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

GA categorization
If your not busy writing astronomy articles, can you please help the Uncategorized Good articles task force by adding the |topic=natsci to the GA templates on hurricane articles along with the |oldid= from the date they were reviewed, to the astronomy related articles? Thanks. Tarret 18:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Discuss it on the talk page
Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean anyone else doesn't. Simply add a resource showing how you know that other folks think that "described taxons" is clearer than "author abbreviations" and I will reconsider. KP Botany 21:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not the same thing. These are not just authors who have described species of plants--that's a much longer list.  These are only authors who have codified standard abbreviations for their names.  It's a real and established category inside and outside of Wikipedia.  KP Botany 22:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal approval
PS Feel free to seek my personal approval before nominating plant categories, but WP:ToL or WP:Plants would be more useful. On the other hand, I do run across categories sometimes that need deleted or merged, and it would be useful to simply ask you to do this, as this seems to be your area on Wikipedia, so how about both parts, discuss the proposal at ToL or Plants first, and you delete the ones we find that need deleted? KP Botany 22:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * For discussion of bird categorizations, you probably want to bring the proposal up at WikiProject Birds. It will probably fly, because South Africa, particularly the Cape Province, has a high rate of endemism of species due to unique weather patterns created by the currents off of the western coast of continents at certain latitudes.  However, if you feel that biological issues are too much for you to handle, the bird folks can probably make these decisions on their own.KP Botany 18:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Amazing
Hey, thanks Dr. Submillimeter. I don't read the articles any more, I learn so much at your deletion discussions. Your coercion of people into explaining stuff to you is both hilarious and educational. I will know how to treat these people in future, thanks again. Fred ☻ 23:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What I do consider to be coercion is marking articles related to WP:CFD discussions as unreferenced. This has forced people to add references to articles twice today.
 * Sorry, I think I lost a thread somewhere. Are you saying that some added references to an article and interupted one of your CfDs! Let me know who they were ;-) Fred ☻  23:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * phew, thanks for the second message. I was wondering!? I will check that out. Ciao.  Fred ☻  23:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL. We are too busy anyway. Fred ☻  23:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. I must apologise to you, I am sorry for being impolite. Please accept my apology for that; my exasperation at some processes here, is no excuse for the tone I took with you. Faithfully,  Fred ☻  12:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Dispute
We don't have any sort of binding restraining orders, if that's what you're after, but you should check out Dispute resolution and Requests for mediation. Andre (talk) 09:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's more for articles, but it can really cover any sort of dispute I think. Andre (talk) 09:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Category removed from an image: (Barnstar-jaapi-s.png)
I noticed you took away category information on an image related to Assam. Your edit comments were "Removed from article space". Maybe you would care to at least leave an explanation behind your action? -Deepraj | Talk 10:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. I do recall some policy along those lines for the demarcation. By the way, do not take these questions as negatively to trigger your quitting "W". We are made up of all ;evels of users and patience is all that will see everyone through. It would miss someone like you. -Deepraj | Talk 14:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Botanists with author abbreviations
No, you've never insulted me, and although I've verged into the snarky, I hope I've not insulted you. Insults are cheap, and ultimately worth every penny.

I was aware of your conflicts with KP, having followed her Wikipedia career for a while. She does indeed have conflicts with many other wikipedians, which is unfortunate, as she is a careful and thoughtful editor. Wikipedia carries a subtle set of pressures for its editors, and all of us can respond badly to one extent or another.

The common thread of botanical author abbreviations, scientific names of organisms, and NGC and Messier names is that all are systems of assigning unique, authoritative designations to items of scholarly interest, in order to facilitate communication, both among scholars and to a lesser extent among the general public. Botanical authors (in this sense) are unique in that they have published new names of plant groups, or made changes to existing names, within the framework of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. Like extended astronomical objects, botanical authors are initially discovered, and that discovery is based on interpretation: is this person the author of this putative publication of a work that purports to create a new or changed botanical name, and does the publication either follow the rules of the ICBN, or else come close enough that it should be tracked anyway? Once a person is identified as such, the rules stipulate that there may be an abbreviation of the name. For consistency and repeatability, that abbreviation should exist in a canonical form. That canonical form is currently assigned and maintained in Brummitt & Powell's Authors of plant names and its successors. In the case of most modern authors, and many ancient ones, existing usage is respected (when I published my first plant name, for instance, I used "C. Clark", and that was accepted), but when such abbreviations are not unique, they are modified to make them so. Thus, just as there exists a set of extended astronomical objects, there exists a set of authors of botanical names. In both cases, the known examples are a subset, and in both cases the formally designated examples are a further subset still.

You, I, and KP all apparently work in university environments; I suspect I have done so for the longest time, having been an undergraduate when mastodons still roamed the plains of Oklahoma. One thing I've learned in all those years is that conflict is best saved, honed, and used surgically, rather than batted about like some Nerf implement. Many of my colleagues, and I much more in my youth, wasted much of their intellectual talents on conflict, blind posturing, wound-licking, and all the other things we do as social primates. But although it is part of our biology, like shitting and pissing it is something we can control, even if others don't.--Curtis Clark 14:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Leaving?
I'm really sorry to hear that. It's a shame when people suck so bad they drive good editors away. If it's worth anything, I think you did a fantastic job at CFD, and your contributions will be sorely missed. Have you considered taking a break instead of leaving? --Kbdank71 18:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, Dr. Sub. I know that you don't know me nearly as well, but I agree that your contribution will be sorely missed.  I suggest that you consider a break rather than leaving outright.  It won't be the same going to CFD and not seeing "Per Dr. Sub".  Several of us have come back from wikibreaks; I hope that you will do the same. --After Midnight 0001 01:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dr. S,

You probably know me less than After Midnight, but I've seen your contributions to CfD to be an immense help to the continued [ordered] ;-) functioning of the project, and hope that your leave is only temporary. I don't know what your dispute was, but I'd hate to see it chase away a good editor. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 06:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to echo the sentiments above. Your insight and enthusiasm has been invaluable to Wikipedia, and to me personally, and I'd like to sincerely thank you for all you've done. I also hope that you'll consider a Wikibreak instead of an absolute split, but I suppose I'll understand if you chose otherwise. But I won't pretend to be happy at your leaving. We'll miss you. Xtifr tälk 12:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Likewise, since the people above have already said everything relevant. - Skysmith 12:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Per nom (Sorry, force of habit - how many times has "per nom" been the only possible comment to leave after one of your CfD nominations?) Like they said, hope you just take a break and return refreshed, instead of leaving completely. BencherliteTalk 22:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Me too! Dr S, your participation transformed CfD, brining a rigour and consistency to it which will be sorely missed. I'd like to echo all of the above, and hope that you will consider taking a wikibreak rather leaving. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Sweeping Star Trek
May I prevail upon you to fire up a bot and clear out the improperly categorized people from Category:Star Trek? Otto4711 00:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You might want to ask someone else. See Dr. Sub's user page for more details.  --Kbdank71 01:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Great Editor
Your AfD nominations and !votes were the best and most well-thought-out of almost anyone's on wikipedia. I will miss your participation. Bulldog123 18:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Heya
Please consider coming back some time soon? You should not let a single user ruin your day or week or month, and you've been a great contributor in all the places I've seen you in.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I second that. I sincerely hope that you do as well : ) - jc37 19:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)