User talk:Ratzer/Archive 2007

Fiordland
Gruess dich! Danke fuer die Daten ueber Fiordland. Allerdings habe ich den Teil etwas umgeschrieben, und deine Quellenangabe in den Text eingebaut (guck es dir mal an wenn du moechtest, inline-Referenzen sind immer die besten). Die Daten der Quellenangabe NICHT in das Editreview schreiben! Da bleiben sie zwar auch bestehen, aber es wird sie nie wieder jemand finden! gruss, MadMaxDog 04:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Grüße dich auch! Es heißt ja, dass man beim Editieren immer seine Quellen angeben soll. Das habe ich getan. In diesem Fall habe ich die Quelle nicht für so wichtig gehalten, sie gleich in den Text einzubauen. Ich stimme zu, dass normale Leser die Quelle so nicht sehen, aber jeder, der sich die Sache genauer anschaut (wie du z.B.) findet sie, sie geht ja nicht verloren.--Ratzer 19:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Territorial authorities of New Zealand
I was unable to find the reference in your edit summary for this article, but the changes you made to this article seem implausible. Waiheke Island is part of the Auckland City Council, and has a population of many thousands. Is there another Waiheke Island that I'm not aware of? If so, the link should be changed.

Our article on Mayor Island/Tuhua says it was inhabited until 1901. If it is inhabited again, our article should be updated.

The Territorial authorities section of the stats department page says "All off-shore islands, with the exception of Mayor, Motiti and White Islands in the Bay of Plenty Region, are included in territorial authorities."

For the time being, I'll remove Waiheke Island from the list as the most obvious problem.

If you can fix these problems, please add a link to your source in the article (not just the edit summary).- gadfium 18:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I took the discussion to the discussion page of the article in question,, hoping to invite people with local knowledge to resolve the open questions
 * That's fine, thanks for your efforts.- gadfium 21:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

San Juan list
It's nothing personal but sections under construction are best kept out of an article until they are finished. Plus prose is better than bulleted lists. Joelito (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Rockall
23 metres tall - above mean sea level? Above lowest spring tide at Dublin Bar at noon on 1 June 1892 or whatever? Please add. --Red King 00:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know. The source (Rockall article in de-Wikipedia) also does not specify this. There seem to be many wikipedia articles that are missing this reference, also the article about the world's highest mountain, Mount Everest.--Ratzer 13:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Project proposal
Hey Ratzer, long time no talk... In case you're interested, I've made a new WikiProject proposal here. Cheers, Tom e rtalk 18:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Three Kings islands
Hi there. I put the tag up because this article has zero references - I don't think its much to ask to put even ONE reference into this article. You say "most of the info is measured or taken from the map in the article, or from the external reference given": If its an external reference then it should be under a "References" heading not a "External links" one- external links aren't nessecarily references. As for the link given, there is no information there. It just has some writing in german and a link to some "Lycos" page - the "Unreferenced" tag should stay there to encourage someone to find references for this page. I'm being quite fair when you consider that this is written on the wikipedia Verifiability page:

''Be careful not to go too far on the side of not upsetting editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people. Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."''[2]

Its nothing personal but this page does need references; there is alot of specific information in there ( facts, figures, dates etc) and at the moment its totally unverifiable; whoever wrote this could have made everything up. Kotare 06:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that the external link didn't work anymore. That happens sometimes, and that's the problem with any internet reference. But with Google, I found the original source material somewhere else in the internet now, and adjusted the link in the article. Most of the other facts are heights, distances, and areas, which are taken, measured or gauged from detailed maps such as the nautical chart in the article. I added a further reference to topographic maps, where you can get a detailed view of the islands, and a page of the sailing directions of the area. If there is anything left that needs verification, let me know.--Ratzer 11:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you insist on removing the "Unreferenced" tag without giving this page references. If they're used as references pages should be put under a references heading, otherwise its just misleading. Anyway, much of this page is a cut and paste job and should probably be deleted Kotare 11:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * External links ARE references. Otherwise they would be unrelated to the article and out of place. However, feel free to change the header of the section. May I also ask you to be specific and stop your global qualifications "much of this page is a cut and paste job". And please don't delete any information unless it is obviously wrong or a violation of copyrights. Wanting to delete much of the article is a destructive attitude.--Ratzer 11:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was alluding to the reference which you corrected the link for, much of the text in the article is identical to that there, thats why I thought it was a cut and paste job and that it should be deleted - apparently though, that page is most likely a cut and paste version of the wikipedia article, my mistake. Anyway, thanks for sorting out references for this article. Kotare 02:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Peros Banhos
Hi Mohunu, I like your map Peros banhos.PNG. Would you consider adding some information to it: to draw a dashed line from the east point of Île Fouquet to the east point of Moresby Island, and marking the area east of it as "Peros Banhos Atoll Strict Nature Reserve". Thank you.--Ratzer 08:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Ratzer, Right from the east point of Ile Fouquet touching the point of that little island? And right east of Moresby island cutting across its reef? Or perhaps slightly more eastwards? I have never seen that in a map, that is why I am asking.

Ratzer I tried drawing a line but the map looked too cluttered. So I have drawn a new map showing the strict nature reserve area. It would be useful to know since when, and which animals are meant to be protected to include in the text, for the paragraph gives little information.

Unnamed Bank
Ratzer: The source is the Admiralty Chart INT 703 titled: 'From the Gulf of Aden to the Maldives and the Seychelles published by the Hydrographic Service in London in 1977. The depth of the bank is charted as being of 33m. The exact shape I don't know because of the scale of the map, but this new bank is marked in pale blue like all the shallows and shoals. Mohonu 04:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Desroches.JPG
Hi. When you uploaded Image:Desroches.JPG, you did not specify complete source and copyright information. Another user subsequently tagged it with GFDL-presumed and, for some time, it has existed on Wikipedia under the assumption that you created the image and you agreed to license it under the GFDL. This assumption, however well-meaning, is not legally sufficient and the tag is being phased out. Images using it are being deleted.

This image has been tagged for deletion and will be deleted in one week if adequate copyright information is not provided.

If you, personally, are the author of this content, meaning that you took the photograph yourself or you created the chart yourself (and it does not use any clipart that you did not create), please retag the image with a free image copyright tag that correctly describes your licensing intentions, usually GFDL-self or PD-self. Please also make sure if you have not already done so that you write a good description of what the image depicts, when you took the photo, and other important details. This will allow Wikipedia to continue using the image.

If you did not create the image or if it is derived from the copyrighted works of others, please keep in mind that most images on the internet are copyrighted and are not suitable for use on Wikipedia. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others and does not use images unless we know that they have been freely licensed. Any creative work is automatically copyrighted, even if it lacks a copyright notice. Unless the copyright holder has specifically disclaimed their rights to the image and released it under the GFDL or another compatible license, we cannot use it. If you did not create the image, and cannot make the image compliant with Non-free content, simply do nothing and it will be deleted in a week. All other non-free images must follow these rules.

Please feel free to contact me on my talk page or leave a message at Media copyright questions with any questions you may have. Thank you. Aksibot 08:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Atoll
Shut your mouth. I thought I was stubbing the main islands. If you didn't notice most of them are described as "isle" not atoll -even the template says Isles of etc.... I started with atoll but then realised they were actually small isles. There are only a few which are worded as "atoll". Please don't overreact. I was only trying to help. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 18:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

And no I don't intend stubbing anymore. What is the point in stubbing 2000 more islands as you think I'm going to if there is no info available and are only 50 metres wide? Did you have to be so patronising and rude to me? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 18:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

For instance did you check Lafanga and Lekena etc and all of the other articles not on that first atoll? They all say isle NOT atoll. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 18:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Done - a small error sorry. Was there really any reason to throw such a big song and dance???? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 18:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks -I see you have done some very good work on islands -I don't ususually respond negatively its just your message was a little patronising and I am not accustomed to messages like this. Apologies for the error - but I'm glad you noticed and it is now corrected. I usually respond to people on their talk page otherwise many people often don't get the message. All the best and keep up the good work ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦  "Expecting you" Contribs 21:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The above is an orphaned piece of discussion taken here by mistake, I presume. The complete discussion is found here .--Ratzer 18:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

HI Ratzer. Yes like yourself I am all for as much coverage on wikipedia as possible even in localities. However I strongly believe the primary factor in deciding which atolls or tiny islands should have an article is available information however small it it. If google comes up with some basic facts then it may be worth it but if not I do think its best that they don;t warrant a seperate article but the isles are summarized on a main island page. Red linking a word though -the isles in this case does give a assertion that it must have a seperate article and if you see isles that you believe don;t qualify for an article -there must be thousands then I suggest that they are unwikified. I dont like to see one line stubs either. What do you think amigo? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Expecting you" Contribs 12:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC).

Dude....
... just what were you thinking? "spatially coincident"? This is Wikipedia, not a math textbook. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * my dictionary does not identify either "spatial" or "coincident" as specific math terms. But if you have a better way of explaining that the geographic term "Little Diomede Island" describes the same spatial extent as the administrative term "City of Diomede", go ahead. It should be made clear that the City of Diomede in an administrative sense does not just occupy a part of Little Diomede Island, but all of it, and nothing more. I'm not a native speaker, and sometimes I overestimate the mastery of English by native speakers.--Ratzer 06:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Arquipélago de São Pedro e São Paulo
Thank you watching the article of the St. Peter and St. Paul Rocks in the English. The article still in construction according to new scientific (geological) research data and articles. The source of the figures is recently submitted scientific article to the Revista Brasileira de Geomorfologia, written by our research group, but still not publised. The English, Spanish, and Japanese Wikipedia pages will be enriched soon to Portuguese level. In addition, Until the end of 2007, I will to open a geological homepage of the St. Peter and St. Paul Rocks. This page will show all of available scientific articles in geology.

> Please don't get offended that I am writing English here

No problem. I am not a native Brazilian, only a geologist working in Rio de Janeiro State Government. Very few geologists working at the St. Peter and St. Paul Rocks can write English. It is one of our weak points. Amotoki 04:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Gibraltar border
Hi, thank you for your message. I would suggest you consider adding it to the geography section, because the lead section is not an appropriate place as outlined before. The use of brackets, particularly in the lead where material should be concise and straight to the point, breaks up sentence cohesion. Vigorous writing is clear and concise. Have a look at WP:OBVIOUS, that should explain it properly. And concerns like this are best taken to the article's associated talk page. thankyou -- Chris B  •  talk  19:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Chris, I did not criticize that you took the information out of the lead section, which was alright, I criticized that you deleted it altogether, and that you downplayed the size of the Spanish border town. The problem is now taken care of, the name of the border town is now mentioned in the Geography section.--Ratzer 05:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

World Wind lagoon size
I just saw your edit summary of "corr. Kingman Reef lagoon size (measurement of World Wind sat image)" on the Line Islands page. How do you measure lagoon sizes in World Wind? Or did you just measure it manually from the image? Either way, would you be willing to help me with the List of islands of Kiribati article? I cannot find any lagoon sizes for the Gilberts. Thanks. --Henry W. Schmitt 06:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A few total sizes (lagoon+dry land+reef flat) are here, and a few more here . Maybe you can look thru the figures and see if they make sense. I also find that we need a table of the Gilberts with that information. With Tuvalu, Line Islands and Phoenix Islands I did it already, although some figures I found for the Phoenix Islands seem to be wrong. A few missing areas I estimated roughly from NASA World Wind, including Kingman Reef.--Ratzer 12:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah they don't make sense. I thought the "Log10" was lagoon area, but they are much too small to be so. Thanks for the links. --Henry W. Schmitt 17:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No no, the areas (in square kilometers) are the column before that. From the order of magnitude, they appear to be correct (e.g. 421 km² total area for Tarawa Atoll). But do you have reliable land area figures? Oceandots, unep, citypopulation and bevoelkerungsstatistik give varying areas for some of the islands/atolls.--Ratzer 19:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh okay so it says Christmas is 530 square km. That is total land mass, including lagoons and lakes? And to calculate the lagoon area you are subtracting the known land area from this total? That 421 for Tarawa seems a bit too big if Christmas is indeed 530 km2. I found a map of both Christmas and Tarawa in the same scale, and it just doesn't seem right. --Henry W. Schmitt 02:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The Tarawa figure seems indeed a bit on the high edge in comparison with Christmas Island. It can also be that the Christmas Island (Kiritimati) figure is wrong (the Wikipedia article says 642 km². The total area includes land area (with interior lakes and ponds), lagoon area, and reef flat area. The latter categorie is not to be neglected, probably larger than the land area in many atolls. The downside of this is that you just can't calculate the lagoon area because the reef flat area is mostly unknown, and also very hard to gauge from sat images. In vol. 127 of the atoll research bulletin, land area and lagoon area figures are given for all Marshall and Gilbert Islands atolls (in square miles), but unfortunately on the download site this publication is incomplete, so only the northermost two islands of the Gilberts are treatet. I wrote to the site already, but I don't know how long it takes them to fix it.--Ratzer 07:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I just found a Swiss UN website (last updated in 1998) that gives area (and a lot of other neat information) of nearly all Kiribati islands. . Some are drastically different from what Wikipedia has (sometimes by &plusmn; 10 km2). I am thinking these are pretty accurate numbers, and they are all on one page, so if some are accurate the rest should be. This doesn't concern lagoon area, but I think it is a good reference for all island sizes. Also I do not think lagoon/lake area is included in these numbers, what do you think? --Henry W. Schmitt 02:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Update: "The lagoon area for Tarawa is 375 km2 and that for Abaiang is approximately 225 km2 or 40% smaller (From Maragos and Holthus, 1999)" page 7. --Henry W. Schmitt 02:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Solander-p5598doc.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Solander-p5598doc.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jackaranga 10:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Solander.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Solander.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jackaranga 10:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * see here . Image can be used IMHO in Wikipedia. You don't add anything new to the discussion.--Ratzer 16:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Three Kings chart.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Three Kings chart.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jackaranga 10:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * see here . Image can be used IMHO in Wikipedia. You don't add anything new to the discussion.--Ratzer 16:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Three Kings.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Three Kings.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jackaranga 10:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * see here . Image can be used IMHO in Wikipedia. You don't add anything new to the discussion.--Ratzer 16:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Gilbert Islands overview table
The table looks great! I just borrowed those numbers for List of islands of Kiribati and I will merge that with List of islands of Kiribati/2. Also I cleaned the Gilbert Islands page up so it is more streamline and orderly. --Henry W. Schmitt (talk) 08:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay I made these changes. I wanted it to be in a way like List of Nations: Not separated by continent or anything, just a list of everything in order. --Henry W. Schmitt (talk) 16:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

List of islands of Kiribati/4
What do you think of this? I added photographs similar to the Russian Wikipedia. Perhaps I should separate them by island group... --Henry W. Schmitt (talk) 09:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a convenient thing for the reader, but at 100 px width it blows up the table size (line height) too much. So I experimented with limiting image height to 20px. If the reader wants to see detail, he has to enlarge the image anyway, therefore it might not matter so much whether the starting size is 100px or 20px. Also with 100px you don't see much detail. Grouping the table entries by archipelago would be nice, then you can save one column in the table. Not all entries are "atolls", some are single low coral islands, like 5 of them are "officially" classified in the Gilberts group. IMHO, the classification as atoll or single low coral island is not always clear-cut. Many isolated islands tun out to be atolls or near-atolls if you have a closer look. Either, they have a small landlocked lake, or a central depression, which is or was the lagoon really. Or others sit at the corner of an atoll structure that is submerged for the rest. Still others seem to be degenerate atolls, like Makin (islands). But I'm not really a specialist in this.--Ratzer (talk) 11:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * K I split them all up. The Russians put Banaba all by itself, but I placed it with the Gilberts. I also called some of the islands with no lagoon a coral island. --Henry W. Schmitt (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:SG-Districts.png
Thanks for uploading Image:SG-Districts.png. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)