User talk:Sunray/Archive03

Oak Ridges Moraine notes section
I apparently forgot to remove and shift references into the proper order when I re-wrote the Hydrology section. It's fixed now. Mindmatrix 1 July 2005 21:08 (UTC)
 * BTW, your message implied that you wanted me to read a certain article, but you never mentioned which one. Have I missed something? As far as Notes vs References go, I don't really care either way. I consider any source of information to be a reference, and I think that on websites, notes and references are the same thing. To wit:
 * Footnotes appear at the bottom of a printed page for an article;
 * References appear on the last page(s) of a printed article;
 * Wikipedia articles aren't broken down by pages, so don't need such distinction.
 * As I said, it doesn't matter to me, but I don't see the need for distinction. (There is the exception of printing Wikipedia articles, and having the appropriate footnotes appear on each page, but that can be solved by javascript and CSS trickery.) Mindmatrix 1 July 2005 21:30 (UTC)


 * Was this the article you were thinking of?
 * Regarding your suggestion: it does make sense. Doesn't that imply that the section for ORM (and sub-articles) should be "References", since they were sources used to write the article. Let's disregard the fact that I didn't originally cite them properly...I keep finding different templates and standards related to citing sources, none of which I particularly like. Mindmatrix 9 July 2005 19:05 (UTC)

I like the way the Geography of India article cites things; indeed, I've been looking over Template:Web reference and Template:Web reference simple, as well as others. I was going to test it on smaller articles I've written first. I'm currently reviewing a bunch of citation-related articles, guidelines and policies. Maybe something useful will come out of that. Mindmatrix 19:37, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeesh
What was that committee smoking?! da blaze  July 2, 2005 17:58 (UTC)

Culture of Canada
Hi, Sunray. An anon editor and User:AndyL (both strident antimonarchists) keep removing a link (which I added originally) to Monarchy in Canada under the symbols section of Culture of Canada. I feel that this is appropriate, given that symbols of the monarchy are still very much a part of Canadian culture. Also, an anon keeps adding republican website links to Monarchist League of Canada (where it is inappropriate). What are your thoughts on this? SouthernComfort 8 July 2005 10:43 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message. I agree that his addition is valid, though as you've noted, it could be expanded a bit, though Monarchy in Canada fills in the blanks obviously. I didn't much care for his condescending and patronizing message on my talk, however. IMHO, political disagreements between users should have no bearing on what actually is, i.e. just presenting the facts in articles, preferably as unbiased as possible. It's one of the things I've always loved about Canada, that despite all the differences and major changes over the years, the society is far more cohesive and organized than many other nations (and I think many people, both sides of the border, underestimate the level of cohesiveness up there). That's my POV. ;) Take care, SouthernComfort 12:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Georgian Bay
It's never been my understanding that the North Channel was considered part of Georgian Bay. As far as I know, it's usually considered a distinct portion of Lake Huron as a whole. YMMV, I suppose, but I was whelped and raised up there... Bearcat 22:34, 9 July 2005 (UTC)


 * [Originally posted on User talk: Bearcat]. In a way it is somewhat academic, since Georgian Bay is a bay of Lake Huron. Nevertheless, the North Channel is commonly referred to as "the North Channel of Georgian Bay" as a Google search of those terms (in quotes) will reveal.  Here's some evidence:
 * The Mission of the Georgian Bay Land Trust: to preserve the unique archipelago and its adjacent water bodies which lie along the eastern shore and North Channel of Georgian Bay that are of ecological, geological and historical importance, and to promote the appreciation of this special area.
 * Other websites:, , Sunray 00:00, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Agriculture
Hi, thanks for your offer to help with the subcategories at Category:Agriculture. I started to do it, but that didn't go over well. All you need to do is:
 * 1) See if the article is in any appropriate categories.
 * 2) If so, especially if those are a subcat of "Agriculture", delete the agriculture category.
 * I might ought to warn you that when I started doing this someone didn't like it. See this [note]. Maurreen 16:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to leave the same note for you in two places.
 * Anyway, I didn't think "Plant farming" was great name myself, but I didn't think of anything better. I considered "Horticulture" but that article implied that the term usually refers to gardens. I was looking for a general name for the part of farming that is about raising plants, in contrast to, say, "Animal husbandry." Anyway, the agriculture category seems to have some items related to growing plants that I'm not sure which, if any, of the current subcategories they belong in. Thanks. Maurreen 03:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I was going to try to give you a few examples, but maybe it's not worth the trouble for any of us. Pollinator is on revert campaign.
 * On a side note, give me a yell if you ever need help with our "AD/BC friend." Maurreen 05:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

BCE
thanks, Sunray. I can accept BCE as an armistice, sure. The actual debate is going on at Eras/Compromise_proposal, though, and pending that outcome, we can't say anything definite. dab (&#5839;) 08:22, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * yes. please note this, I am convinced this is where we are headed. dab (&#5839;) 08:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd prefer it if someone else handled the issue since Jguk continues to falsely accuse me of making unilateral changes (see his recent comments on Talk:Elam), despite having pointed out to him numerous times that I made the changes to ensure consistency. Also Dbachmann apparently refuses to use BCE in his edits, and someone like Jguk could very well use that to change the rest of the article to BC. I've thus far avoided making any major edits because of this since it doesn't seem like consensus honestly carries any weight - if it did, all editors involved with the article would respect consensus and conform to the convention agreed upon. Why should we have to "clean up" after other editors in order to ensure consistency, when consensus has already been reached? I mean, if this is the way it's going to be, what's the point? SouthernComfort 07:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)