User talk:Stemonitis/Archive14

'''DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.'''

This archive page covers approximately the dates between May 05 2007 and May 15 2007.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarising the section you are replying to if necessary.

AfD for "House Resolution 333"
Stemonitis, Just FYI -- the article on HR 333 has been nominated for deletion. I noticed you have contributed to this article and wanted to invite you to participate in the "debate page" for the decision. Thank you for your consideration.--OtisTDog 01:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, no, I only sorted it into a more specific stub category than Category:Stubs. I do that to hundreds of articles, and I have no particular interest in the topic. Sorry. --Stemonitis 06:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

How ?
Hi, thanks for the whole loads of cleaning up. How do you get the time and energy for this ? Just rhetorical! Cheers. Shyamal 11:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Zip Codes
Hello,

I happened on your name when looking at the Estherville, Iowa Article. I noticed you had edited it recently, and was wondering if you do much editing of US Cities. If so, do you know whether it has ever been proposed to include Postal (Zip) and Telephone Area Codes in the Articles? If it has not, what would you think of the idea? -- Michael David 17:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry to disappoint you, but I was just reverting a swathe of vandalism by someone who had edited one of the pages I watch, so I know nothing about what information is and is not generally included in articles on US places. --Stemonitis 17:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks. I was just curious. -- Michael David 17:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Killy
What should we do to solve this problem? A poll?  ~ I&#39;m anonymous
 * That may indeed be the only solution. Unless, that is, some other meaning of "Killy" appears which is of similar importance to the Blame! character. One candidate might be Jean-Claude Killy, who is the chief result when searching the Internet for "Killy". Perhaps with him on the disambig. as well, it wouldn't be so clear that the manga thing is the primary topic. How does that sound? Once again, I have ended a paragraph with the opposite opinion to the one with which I started it. --Stemonitis 17:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Come again? Can you explain that last line?  ~ I&#39;m anonymous
 * Oh, it's not important, but on several occasions (in other discussions), I have ended a paragraph with a very different opinion to the start. The real question is, would you be happy with my moving Killy (disambiguation) to Killy if Jean-Claude Killy is added? I imagine the answer is "yes", but it's worrth getting confirmation. --Stemonitis 18:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course. That I support, if Jean-Claude Killy is added to the page. Will you do it now?  ~ I&#39;m anonymous
 * Just checking. Consider it done. --Stemonitis 19:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for everything. I don't wanna sound like a broken record, but I have to ask: what made you do it?  ~ I&#39;m anonymous

Gammarus roeselii
Please note Talk:Gammarus roeselii. --Snek01 18:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Noted. --Stemonitis 18:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Reminder
The AfD has been closed with no consensus for List_of_Christian_Apologetic_Works. Could you move it as we discussed at User_talk:Stemonitis/Archive12? Thanks! --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 01:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. --Stemonitis 11:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Swordmaker moves
The creator of the Kenzō Kotani page moved it again (for the fourth time) to Yasunori of the Yasukuni Shrine after you closed the move request. I have reverted that move and asked him to go to the talk page, but I'm not sure that can be expected at this point. Would you be able to put a move lock on the page for the time being?

There's another issue that might need addressing here as well. Are you readily available through your e-mail link? Dekimasu よ! 13:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll put a note on his/her talk page explaining the situation. Only if he/she continues after that, will I consider putting move protection on. In answer to your second question, yes, I have email enabled, and I have just installed a notifier, so that I'll find out immediately when an email arrives (there wouldn't have been a long delay anyway, but this reduces it to a minimum; I probably should have done this a while ago). --Stemonitis 14:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * For a minor nuisance on a low-traffic article, that does make more sense than move protection. As always, thanks for your help. I've sent off that e-mail as well, and hope I'm just overthinking things here. Dekimasu よ! 14:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Tempaire has moved the article again. Dekimasu よ! 04:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Very well, since I see that popular concensus seems to favor the Kenzo Kenzo name, I will leave it as is and not change it. tempaireTempaire 04:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Teen Titans
I'm not sure why you said that We do not count opinions from previous discussions, because consensus can change, and in this case the two requests are not comparable anyway at the Teen Titans discussion page when the only other discussion/survey being referenced in regards to the move was me asking the week before if it should take place. That seems imminently relevant, since it was an identical question that sparked the discussion/survey started after the move was formally requested, albeit with a different result. I wasn't asking that the result of the previous discussion override the current, only that the opinions of the other users involved be taken into account. Darquis 07:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I had thought you were referring to the previous move request (December 2006), which may explain some of the confusions. However, move requests are about arguments, not votes. The number of people agreeing with a statement is irrelevant. Even you admitted that "A case could be made for the TV show", and I saw no compelling evidence that any one topic was so overwhelmingly dominant that it should displace the disambiguation page. --Stemonitis 07:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Future game
Stemonitis,

I don't think you were correct in closing the discussion at Template talk:Future game as "no consensus" - the only opposing voice was yours, and it was given after you'd already closed the debate. I've also discovered while trying to follow your advice and parameterise the existing template that the template already uses the first parameter to determine the sort key, so an additional parameter can't be added unless all templates that use it also provide a sortkey. I don't think there's a RM review process, but would it be possible to reopen the request and continue the debate? Thanks, Percy Snoodle 09:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * RM is not a vote, and there were other questioning voices. As I understand it, it should be possible to add extra named parameters without compromising existing uses of the template. could be made to work. In fact, I think someone's already doing that; it's been edited since I started typing this. --Stemonitis 09:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm aware RM isn't a vote, but I think a consensus had been reached. They are indeed working to fix the template now, so it's clear that there was consensus to do something. Percy Snoodle 10:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't doubt that there is desire for something to change; I just wasn't sure that the renaming of a much-used template was the wisest way forward (doubts which were raised by others, so it's not just a case of my acting unilaterally to block consensus). If it proves impossible to extend the existing template to fulfil its new needs, and if someone (or someone's bot) agrees to fix the links, then I'll gladly move the template, in line with consensus, but I think these conditions would have to be met first. --Stemonitis 10:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Wouldn it - in your opinion - be inappropriate for me to post this at Bot Requests, despite the closure of the RM? I think that if the existing articles were altered to use future video game then the situation would become much easier.  Percy Snoodle 11:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that would be inappropriate, although I do think it would be easier to create future game other than to usurp future game. --Stemonitis 11:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Easier, perhaps - but as I've said, I feel that sort of thing strengthens WP's systemic bias towards electronic media, so if I can avoid it, I will. Thanks for your advice. Percy Snoodle 11:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Javelin
I figured you'd contest the name. Are you like the only one who works on WP:RM? Even so, how should we advise the community?  ~ I&#39;m anonymous


 * All I meant by that was that a full move request (steps 1, 2 and 3 on WP:RM) should be filled out (with move and probably {{subst:WP:RMtalk}}). I've been consciously avoiding using phrases like "let's have a vote on it", because there's been lots of criticism of polling on move requests, most of which was entirely justified, but perhaps my chosen euphemism was too opaque. I haven't come across any better way of determining the primary use of a term than by asking a bunch of people what they'd expect to find at a certain title. I initially thought it was bound to be the weapon, but realised later that the article doesn't cover the sporting equipment, but only the ancient weapon, and then I wasn't so sure any more.


 * I do seem to be doing most of the moves at the moment, but I hope that will change. It wouldn't be good to have a single administrator running the show, and there are a couple of others who close the occasional debate; I'd be more than happy if they or others increased their activity at WP:RM. --Stemonitis 16:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No offense, but it does really upset me and deeply pisses me off that one person (who happens to be an admin.) usually has to contest the move on account of what he/she thinks. Why not simply peform the move, and if no one likes it, they'll notify you or someone else? You're not initially in charge of proctoring the WP:RM, are you? If so, then I apologize for not understanding your position and being a bit uncivil.  ~ I&#39;m anonymous


 * The admin's rôle is to ensure that the community's will is acted upon. In some cases, it is obvious how the community would react if it were asked; these are the truly uncontroversial proposals. Where it is less clear what the consensus is, I am unwilling to make changes until the consensus is shown. This is how Wikipedia works. I am sorry if it annoys you; I'm not sure I can do much to abate that. If I don't think a move has community support, then I won't make it, and certainly not on behalf of a third party. No-one is an expert on everything, and I feel that it is perfectly reasonable for me to throw the question open and prompt discussions if I cannot determine the likely outcome with a good degree of certainty. As it happens, all I'm asking is that you carry out the (now hopefully streamlined) WP:RM procedure and let others examine the proposal. As long as the community is behind you, the only negative effect that this will have is a short delay. The project is not about what's best for you, nor about what's best for me, but what's best for the encyclopædia, which sometimes requires more commentators than 2. It is precisely because I am not in charge at WP:RM (or anywhere else on Wikipedia) that I request that proposals of unclear (to me) merit be discussed before being performed. --Stemonitis 17:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand where you're going with this, but I'm still unhappy about your way of settling things. See Javelin (disambiguation) to see if I did it correctly. Albeit I'm rather unsure on whether or not using a survey would be helpful since you yourself said that polling is controversial.  ~ I&#39;m anonymous

Ant
Great work. The new region-wise diversity table can perhaps do with some additional space around it so that the text is not so close to the edge. Perhaps there is a div tag specification that does it. Shyamal 09:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've put a 10px space around it — I hope that's the sort of thing you meant. And we should all be thanking you, not vice versa; you put much more work into that article than anybody else. The GA was well-deserved. --Stemonitis 09:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it looks much better now. Shyamal 09:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Taxoboxes help please
Hi Stemonitis. I've just made a page on Darmera peltata but don't feel qualified to create or fill in the taxobox. I see you've worked on some of the Saxifragaceae pages - is there any chance you could sort out a box for Darmera peltata? Many thanks Jasper33 09:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. It's not that hard; I just copy and paste from another (usually closely related) article, and change the details. The only tricky bit is finding out the taxonomic authorities, but even that's not too difficult, although it often gets left out. Nice article, by the way. It would probably be wise to make redirects from the various common names that people might search for. --Stemonitis 09:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Blimey, that was quick! Thanks, and I'll get on to the redirects. Jasper33 09:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Carte Blanche (show)
Per Naming conventions (television), it should have probably been moved to Carte Blanche (TV series) as it appears to be an ongoing series/episodic. (If it was not a series, then Carte Blanche (TV programme) would have been more appropriate.) Such a move seems uncontroversial, but I'd rather defer to you, since you closed the discussion. Would you rather just alter the closure; be bold and move it; would you like me to move it; or some other option? - jc37 18:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Either of those moves would be unobstructed, and entirely uncontroversial. It's a shame nobody suggested it during the move request, but better now than later. You obviously understand the conventinos for TV programmes better than me, so I'm happy for you to do it. --Stemonitis 19:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Did the move, and fixed the redirect, though I left the talk page links to "show", and left "show" as a redirect. I also noted it in your closure, though feel free to revert and list it differently if you wish. - jc37 02:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The Church of Jesus Christ move
I have a question regarding policy. You closed the RM on The Church of Jesus Christ. Looking at the results, I see what you've done, and I agree with the decision that was made. But somehow, I feel kinda like my request would have been met if I had been less civil. There was some discussion about whether or not to move the page, and the page was moved without consensus to it's current location. I was thinking about just doing the move, and it would have required administrative action to bring it back. In the current case, there was no consensus to move the article, so it remained where it was, at a place that didn't have consensus. Had I moved the article, then a discussion occured, there wouldn't have been consensus, and it would have remained where I put it. Do you understand what I'm saying. I feel like they've been "rewarded" for having made a decision without consensus. Becuase consensus won't ever be reached, they get their way? I fail to see the beauty of the Wiki Policy. From here on out, if I think consensus won't be reached, should I just make moves, and then I'll win because consensus won't be present to fix what I've done? Just my thoughts on the subject. McKay 20:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This is indeed a problem, and I'm not sure how it could be solved. It was brought up not that long ago (see here). There would need to be a kind of debate where "no consensus" was not a possible outcome, and I don't see any desire among the community for inventing new procedures like that (WP:RM is widely considered to be "too bureaucratic" as it is). In the meantime, for future cases, I can only suggest that it be made clear in the reasons for the request that it is largely to undo a unilaterally-made move. In this specific case, it probably wouldn't have made much difference, but you're right that there's a flaw in the system, and that people can play the rules to force an outcome against consensus (or at least without consensus). --Stemonitis 20:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * p.s. a bit of nitpicking: what you're talking about isn't incivility, which is righfully frowned upon, but boldness, which is seen quite differently.

So what can I do? You've said it's a flaw in the wiki policy. If I had said "It is largely to undo a unilaterally-made move." Would I be wrong to move it anyway? No one has shown me how my reasonings that the current location is against wikipolicy, so should I just be BOLD and move it, requiring consensus to move it back? Also, I would like to applaud you in your analysis of the situation and not putting your own opinion in the outcome in your closing the case, but What do you think? am I executing Wikipolicy or fighting against it. I feel like I'm a single person fighting a war against a nation, I fail to see the holes in my logic, but with so many people against me, I fear that I may be mistaken? What's your analysis of the situation? McKay 14:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to explain the situation, the page as it was originally made was using an offensive term. This name then was quickly changed to the official name of the organization, The Church of Jesus Christ.  It was not to offend or to oppose wiki policies, but rather done so that a serious offense might be removed.Jcg5029 20:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
...for settling the Plame affair naming issue with a clear explanation. Glad that's over.--ragesoss 21:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Islamic science requested move
Sorry I didn't respond sooner, but when you closed the move, you said there was no consensus, even though there was no objection to the move. Can you please explain why you didn't make the move?--Sefringle 05:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I was unconvinced by the arguments, and would tend towards opposition, although I wouldn't explicitly oppose the move. I noted in my closing remarks that the moves are unobstructed and suggested (albeit obliquely) that anyone could move the articles if they wanted to, and even suggested small improvements to the title. When only one person comments on an idea, it is very difficult to gauge consensus, so in this case, I chose to duck the issue. If you want to move it, I would suggest you be bold and do so. --Stemonitis 08:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Philbrook Museum of Art
Thank you for fixing my mistake on Philbrook Museum of Art. Please accept my apologies for this error of my youth. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for archiving
Thanks for resetting Battlefield's discussion pages and archiving it. It's was real mess up and appreciate your help!--BirdKr 11:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Enfield dab and redirect
I wonder if you could be persuaded to give some input related to how to set up Enfield and Enfield (disambiguation), based on its recent appearance at WP:RM and, in particular, User talk:Dekimasu. I've been reverted once or twice, and I don't like to continue those sorts of things. Dekimasu よ! 02:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I've stuck my oar in. If Sarah777 tries to undo it again today, then I'll talk to her directly. You have interpreted the situation in roughly the same way as me, it seems, and I assume you considered it independently. Since neither of us is particularly partisan on this issue, that leads me to believe that what we each decided is at least reasonable if not plain right. That alone makes a discussion necessary before anyone overrules us, and that much we can ensure. --Stemonitis 06:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as metropolitan areas are concerned, the debate went the other way recently at Talk:Las Vegas, Nevada. I'm still not so sure we got that one right. Anyway, it wasn't until after I had altered the redirect that I noticed you were involved. I was using WP:DPM in an attempt to find and clean up primary topic redirects that had been sent to dab pages unilaterally. And thanks for the input... Dekimasu よ! 12:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to say, I think the whole North American (& Australian) convention of "City, State" canonical naming is absurd when the "City" part is unambiguous, but that's only my opinion, and consensus is against it (to the detriment of Las Vegas, Hollywood, Mississauga, Wagga Wagga and countless others). Sometimes you just have to sit back and let consensus be wrong. Mind you, if it was entirely up to me, I might be mischievous and have "Boston" redirect to Boston. Then again, maybe not. We'll see how Enfield pans out; it looks like being either the town or the borough, and neither would be really objectionable. --Stemonitis 12:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Can't agree guys. And "that much we can ensure" is rather aggressive! To which I'd reply "Don't be so sure"! Fact is (by my calculation) 80% of folk who are looking for "Enfield" are NOT looking for Enfield in London; they are looking for places in Australia, Canada, Ireland and for guns.


 * Above all they may (based on Google and the Wiki-link-count) be looking for Enfield in New Hampshire. In such circumstances it is akin to the "first-past-the-post electoral system" - a bizarre abomination - to select the biggest Enfield as the default - despite the fact that only a small fraction of readers looking for "Enfield" are looking for it. Clearly, given the relatively wide dispersion of "Enfields" the proper first stop is the disambiguation page.
 * (Sarah777 22:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC))


 * I don't know what you're basing these assertions on. There are actually more hits for Enfield + London - Wikipedia than for Enfield - Wikipedia alone, meaning that a London meaning covers about 102% of uses (Google counts don't always add up). In any case, they are a strong majority of uses. This also ignores the fact that most US places are canonically referred to by "City, State", and so would always be called "Enfield, Connecticut" or "Enfield, CT", for instance. The topic which is most often meant by an unqualified use of the term "Enfield" really is the part of London, however defined. Your value of 80% seems entirely erroneous. Where does it come from? --Stemonitis 06:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Rename Call for Help
Hi Stemonitis. You contested a normally uncontroversial move of Call for Help (TV series) → Call for Help. Do you really feel that "there's a case to be made for having Call for Help redirect to call for help (as it did some years ago)"? If so, please see my current statement as to why consensus is not required for this move, at WP:RM. If you still disagree, please state so. If you do not disagree, I'd love your help in completing this move. Remember, the double redirects are there in anticipation for the move.—Wikibarista 16:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I had no idea the other article had been deleted. In that case, the move is of course entirely uncontroversial. I've just done it. --Stemonitis 16:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, not all the double redirects have been fixed in advance… --Stemonitis 16:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice either! Looks like someone went through and changed back my now-stale double redirects. I've changed them back. Thanks for taking care of that so quickly. —Wikibarista 16:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Greater Colombia term in English
Why did you change it? read WP:ENGLISH..-- I am greener than you! (Lima - Charlie - Over) 00:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "Gran Colombia" is the most common term for it in English. This makes "Gran Colombia" a borrowing, and thus part of English. WP:ENGLISH is used to justify all sorts of ridiculous assertions and is usually misquoted. --Stemonitis 06:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Revert
Why did you revert my request for an controvertial move (found here). The article I requested to be moved is currently uncomformed to Wikipedia's naming policy. - Throw 18:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Two reasons. Firstly, it was in the wrong place: you had edited the header rather than the page itself. More importantly, however, the move is unobstructed. When the target is a red link, any user who was registered more than four days ago can make such moves without assistance. You have been registered for nearly a year, so you shouldn't have any difficulty with that. --Stemonitis 18:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Uncontroversial move of Free software licence
Is the move from "Free software license" to "Free software licence" really uncontroversial? The article began life as being written in American English and remained so until Gronky did a complete rewrite of the article and changed the spelling from American English to British English in late January/early February of this year. Since then there has been a number of changes back to American English, with Gronky reverting the spelling changes back to British English. I'm not sure this is a good precedent to set in regards to the overly touchy subject of WP:ENGVAR as I suspect it might unleash a number of people to rewrite an article in their preferred English dialect, defend that spelling for a few months, and then file an uncontroversial move request saying the article's title should match the preferred dialect. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Fortunately, we don't set precedents.
 * In this case, I wasn't very happy with the reasoning given, but the discussion on the talk page did seem to indicate acceptance of the British spelling by both sides, and the disparity between title and content was indeed jarring. Ultimately, the change is fairly cosmetic, and I see nothing wrong with having a few articles switching between spellings as their most prevalent authors change from people of one nationality to another. We don't want to encourage it, but it's not the end of the world when it happens. Usually, such changes get reverted and there's no harm done. It is far more destructive when massive arguments erupt over petty issues. Thus, although I found Gronky's method less than ideal, there isn't a strong reason not to accede to his wishes if it keeps everyone calm. Remember that he would have done it himself if the redirect hadn't been obstructed, and it also provided the impetus for some double, triple, and (I think) quadruple redirects to be fixed. It wouldn't be too hard to switch it back later, but there wouldn't be any compelling reason for that either. That's exactly why the arguments are so futile when they start.
 * "Uncontroversial" is perhaps the wrong word; let's say the request was unlikely to benefit from wider community input.
 * If Gronky were to follow this up with requests for every other article with "license" in the name to be moved to the Commonwealth English spelling (and especially if he tried to cite this case as a precedent), his request would not be treated in the same way. --Stemonitis 21:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Works for me. I'm not an ENGVAR nut, just been involved in enough cross pond discussions to know the American and British nationalists can get pretty worked up over something as minor as spelling. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Which is exactly what I was trying/hoping to sidestep. If it all flares up, then the article can be moved back fairly easily. If not, then everything's OK. I'm crossing my fingers… --Stemonitis 22:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)