User talk:Invertzoo/Archive 44

ARCHIVE PAGE 44: August 2011

The Signpost: 01 August 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot;Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot(talk) 01:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 August 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot;Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot(talk) 23:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Joining Gastropods
Hafa Adai Invertzoo,

I'm trying to get the hang of Wiki. I got started by looking for a few favorite Nudibranchs and I noticed they didn't have any photos. So I uploaded a few and added a few thoughts...Ha. Then I actually tried to add some information on Harlequin Shrimp. Anna Frodesiak's quickly educated me on how to post information :-) Anyway, I'm trying to figure out what Categories I should add to the nudibranch photos. Maybe you could give me some suggestions so the CatagoryBot doesn't chase me down and eat me. I'd be happy to join the group! I have a bunch if photo that could go in stub articles. For example, the whole genus Noumea has no information. I don't have tons of time to write whole pages but I'll contribute where I can! If you could start but suggesting the proper catagories I should have that would be great!

Chad Ordelheide (talk) 09:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The Third Man
Hey, really sorry to have messed up your edit — we were both working simultaneously. I'll step back — use whatever you want of mine, or revert the whole damn thing. Truly sorry! —HarringtonSmith (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I like your revision much better than my own. I knew that it was a third man, err, user, who had reverted me, and when I saw your edit, I was just as glad. Interesting is that it was his/her first edit in five weeks-and-some. Always nice to know that the wretchedness of one's prose is enough to wake the moribund, or fetch them forth from the tunnels below, as it were. Anyway, nice trim of this difficult summary (though I think it deserves 1200 words and was better at that length). Cheers. — HarringtonSmith(talk) 20:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I too was twelve when I saw it for the first time, and I've loved it ever since. I hope you've been able to snare a Criterion Collection edition of it: 23,000 digital repairs, transferred from the original camera neg — I saw rats scurrying along ahead of Lime down in the sewer that I hadn't seen in a hundredviewings on VHS! The Criterion disc is out-of-print now, but they are around on the net if you don't already have one. The film deserves much better treatment than it has received on Wikipedia; unfortunately, there are editors (or one editor and his sockpuppets) who have axes to grind about Welles being the "real" director of it, and I just grew weary of battling him/them. There certainly are enough scholarly sources to put together a cracking article on it. Also, it was in the public domain for awhile, so images from it shouldhave been acceptable, but Criterion claimed copyright on their edition (which they certainly deserve) and now those images get removed when anyone puts them up. It's a shame — they really help the vast grayness. Ah, well. It's been nice commiserating with you on a favorite film; thanks again for your great editing on it! —HarringtonSmith (talk) 10:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Once again, you did a great job tidying up after some ham-fisted additions. I'm close to saying I like the new slimmed-down summary better than its predecessors, but I do have a single qualm: the Ferris wheel scene is mischaracterized just saying that Lime reiterates his job offer and threatens to kill Martins. There's no overt threat, but more importantly, it starts the process of Martins's disillusionment with his old friend that ultimately leads to his betrayal of him. I could do 700 words on that scene alone, which is why you've been making the best edits! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

We're getting there, but not quite. About that scene, when they get off the wheel, Lime tells Martins if he winds up with Anna, to be good to her, that "you'll find she's worth it." Can you imagine? That remark always made me think less of Lime than the penicillin! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 01:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I made a little tweak to the Ferris wheel sentence: resequenced the events — threat, callousness, then job —then added "before hurrying off." I think I upped the word count by five or six.HarringtonSmith (talk) 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You mentioned you hadn't seen the Ferris wheel scene in a while, so a little booster shot for you. Although the cuckoo clock remark is way better known, I always thought Lime's line that "You and I aren't heroes, Holly. The world doesn't make any heroes, outside of your stories" was far more compelling. His weariness with the world almost makes him sympathetic. Almost. Time's getting short for you till the 21st. Bet you're excited! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 18:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

New article Noumea crocea
Hafa Adai Invertzoo,

I just created my first new Nudibranch Page from scratch. I would appreciate if you took a glance at it to see if it's acceptable as a expanded "stub", and of course if you would like to offer any suggestions. Thanks :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chad Ordelheide (talk • contribs) 23:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Message
13:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot;Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe&middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 08:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Edits to The Third Man plot summary
Invertzoo, thank you for the patient explanation of your quest to pare down the plot summary to 700 words or under. While not a Platinum editor like yourself, I have a number of years of Wikipedia service and am closing in on five figures worth the contributions, but was not logged in that day. It was only after making the edits I did that I noticed you had been on such a quest, and had, alas, already reverted a number of otherwise fine edits by previous contributor (but remained unawares of the 700 word guideline till your note to me).

I would like to emphasize that word for you, politely. "Guideline". Honestly, does that not permit exceeding 700 words with cause, a guideline? Otherwise it is a rule, hard and fast. Frankly, the fact the plot of The Third Man is so complicated calls for 771 words if that is what it reasonably takes to make the summary read like a literate account of the movie. Isn't that clear to you? Surely it must be. Trying to pare it down so that it reads like a preflight check list really is not in the spirit of the thing, though it's clear you are determined to make that effort. Couldn't you focus on something else and let quality writing - always needed at Wikipedia - be? This is hardly an instance where even well-intended rigidity is called for. Yours.67.189.236.243 (talk) 01:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry, which then is your user page when you are logged in? Last time I wrote to you on your IP address page by accident. I do totally understand the points you are making, and I sympathize with your position on this, I really do. However, I think you will find that there are quite a number of editors (a consensus apparently) who specialize in movie articles and who are very convinced that longer plot summaries are never a good idea, and they tend to flag anything they notice is over 700 words with a tag saying it is too long. I do not specialize in movie articles by any means, but I try to adhere to Wikipedia guidelines as best as I can, especially if it means I can then legitimately remove an unsightly "too long" tag, as was the case with this article. The summary was over 1000 words, I believe it was 1200. I hope in September to do a new version of the plot summary that does not attempt at all to go through the movie scene by scene but instead simply summarizes the story. Best wishes to you, and it's always nice to meet another movie buff! Invertzoo(talk) 01:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * 67.189.236.243, if you check back in the article's history, you'll find an editor(s) who immediately slapped on the "too long" tag the moment the Plot section went a few words north of 700. There are editors to this page (myself included) who feel that the rich story of TTM deserves a fuller synopsis, but that such a negative tag at the top would have a negative impact on the end users of the article — our readers. The rigidity is not ours, but the taggers'. Cordially, HarringtonSmith (talk) 03:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 August 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot;Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe&middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Holidays, mollusks, and navboxes
Hello. I hope you're having a lovely holiday.

I thought you'd get a kick out of edit. :) I thought I saw it redirect to Gastropod, while having a mollusc/mollusk brain malfunction. Then this exact thing went through my mind: "Huh? What did I just do?" Molluscs are above gastropods. Squid! No. What? Lemme check. I forget."

I was at Bouchet & Rocroi investigating the possibility of some sort of navbox for gastropd articles. Things seem to have changed, and I got confused, so I dropped the idea. I guess the taxobox suits the purpose. If you think otherwise, let me know. But I can't find a suitable, useful format.

Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I am still very jet-lagged as we only arrived yesterday, early a.m., so my brain has not arrived yet. A navbox for gastropods? It is an intriguing idea. What did you have in mind? Can you show me an example for another class of animals? Of course the taxobox works fine as a navigation aid if you understand taxonomy at all. And we also have a template with links for edible mollusks, for what that's worth.Invertzoo (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Jet-lagged? Only arrived yesterday? On holiday? Already on Wikipedia? Oh, my. You are hopelessly addicted. :)


 * Ah, edible mollusks navbox. I never saw it before. It could use organizing into groups like oysters, clams, etc. It's a bit of a wall of text. Piping available common names in where latin names are displayed would be good too. Maybe I'll work on that.


 * Yes, I don't see another navbox as being useful. Many thanks for the input. Have a nice holiday, wherever you are. I guess it's not Nevis, or you wouldn't be lagged. Dive safe. Stay they heck off the computer. Have fun. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Anna, are you thinking navboxes like this one for bullhead sharks? For gastropods, you can think of adding one at the family or the lowest clade. — Ganeshk ( talk ) 01:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Ganeshk. That's a strange one. It's like a horizontal taxobox.


 * The title and Heterodontidae and Heterodontus all go to bullhead shark. Plus, the left group and subgroups (Heterodontidae, and Heterodontus) are confusing and could go on the "above" bar. I don't think visitors will understand that Heterodontidae on the left means "higher up" taxonomically.


 * I guess there's no useful navbox for all the gastropods. The only thing I can think of is a very simple taxobox containing only the very top groups. That would lead visitors to those biggies with the composite taxobox images. The main idea is for visitors at some slug article to get an overview, and a way to navigate, and maybe understand where they are. The taxobox is like looking at a single line only, but doesn't give an overview.


 * I tried to make something here, but it didn't work out very well: User:Anna Frodesiak/Violet sandbox. One image per clade is misleading, and more than one seems out of the question. Maybe images aren't such a good idea.


 * The medical editors really have it together with stuff like this: Template:Cell wall disruptive antibiotics. There have zillions like that. I wish we could have the same.


 * The advantage is the cross-navigational traffic. Sort of ties it all together. Plus, a single navbox could add value to thousands of articles, with taxonomical updates only being made at a single source navbox.


 * I'm on the fence on this one. You folks know best. Sorry about the long post. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Message
02:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Messages
and 01:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot;Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe&middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 08:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)