User talk:Macdonald-ross/Archive 11

← Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12 →

Monkwearmouth-Jarrow

I would have appreciated you discussing the changes you made to this article before you made them. In the sources and at the present-day Wearmouth-Jarrow site, where the two names are used together the name was either Monkwearmouth-Jarrow or Wearmouth-Jarrow. Even sources I didn’t cite in the article hyphenated the name (they’re in my notes if you’d like to check them). At any rate I changed it back to match the sources and to be consistent throughout the article. Rus793 (talk) 16:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I think Macdonald's move was trying to reflect that this is a case of MOS:DASH rather than MOS:HYPHEN...? Osiris (talk) 03:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Correct. And while I don't wish to cause offence to Rus (whose work I do respect), changes based on the style guide are usually not discussed. In fact, the style guide was specifically intended to stop conflicts over typographic alternatives (the date format being a good example). Our typography is not governed by the typography of the sources quoted in an article. Macdonald-ross (talk) 04:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I followed the MOS:DASH guideline. Under the heading 'Dashes' it states: A hyphen is used by default in compounded proper names of single entities. That's exactly what Monkwearmouth-Jarrow was. A compound proper name; a single entity comprised of two monasteries. I also went by WP:TITLE where it says: "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. When this offers multiple possibilities, editors choose among them by considering several principles: the ideal article title resembles titles for similar articles, precisely identifies the subject, and is short, natural, and recognizable." The predominant form in sources was the hyphenated names of both monasteries—when the author was referring to both monasteries as a single entity. In some cases it was Monkwearmouth-Jarrow (the earliest form of the name) and in other cases it was Wearmouth-Jarrow—but in the majority of cases it was hyphenated. I found a few instances of 'Monkwearmouth/Jarrow', 'Monkwearmouth & Jarrow' and 'Monkwearmouth and Jarrow'. I have yet to see a single instance of the use of an en-dash between the two names. As for resembling a title for similar articles, up until the enWP article was renamed yesterday, it was Monkwearmouth-Jarrow Abbey. Originally in 2005 it had an en-dash, but has been since gone back and forth and has remained a hyphenated name since February of 2011. The majority of other articles use the hyphenated form of the name. In edit summaries on both wikis, you (Mac-ross) wrote "not a hyphenated word." I agree it isn't a hyphenated word; it's a hyphenated name. And that's the reason I chose to follow the name form used in the sources, follow the similar articles and follow the guidelines I did. Rus793 (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Gaia

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		Looking at the news this morning, I read about the launch of Gaia. This should be on Simple English Wikipedia I said to myself. But someone else had the same idea in what would be the middle of the night and beat me to it. A well deserved award for keeping up with the very latest science news Peterdownunder (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Credit really goes to the BBC News Science & Environment, which I check every couple of days. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Capella

Just a note to tell you that you created Capella in April and have now created Capella (star) in December. Are they not the same topic? Cheers. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

How very annoying! But thank you for noticing; I've fixed it now. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit Summaries

Please remember to put edit summaries on your contributions. Thank you. Thesixthstaff (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Opinion

Hello, Macdonald-ross. I have been de facto ignored by aunt on Talk:Atomic mass so I wondered if you would like to give your opinion there. It is essentially a small issue on the meaning of 'equals' and whether it gives the wrong idea. There are other cases where the same issue will arise so it is good to come to an agreement. --Thrasymedes (talk) 11:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I have not been ignoring you. It has only been two or three days since you left the message on my talk page, and I have been thinking about what you said. What I think is that it would be good to get input from some of our people who do a lot of work on scientific articles here. I also think that you would need to explain the word "equivalent" if you use it. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Understood. I agree and that's why I asked Macdonald-ross, one of our most active science editors. --Thrasymedes (talk) 08:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I have now replied on the Talk:Atomic mass page. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Use of citation templates

Hi. I'm wondering why you remove parameters from citation templates, like this. You did it recently on Click beetle as well. Did you know that when you move non-author information into the |author= parameter like that you corrupt any metadata (COinS) that might have helped readers research the cited material? For example, previously, citation management software (like Google Scholar) would have read all the bibliographic details correctly, which would have allowed it to find, among other helpful things, other works published by those authors and other works that cite that publication. But after you changed it, it now reads the author as "Ghiretti-Magaldi A. & Ghiretti F. 1992. The pre-history of hemocyanin: the discovery of copper in the blood of molluscs" (almost certainly drawing a blank) and shows no title and no year, making it unidentifiable. The citation template is already printer-friendly, if that was your thinking; the template already makes the bare URL visible in those cases. If it's just to change the formatting, then you should probably not use citation templates and just write out the citation as you prefer it to look. Osiris (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, you've taught me things I didn't know anything about. I was and am motivated to make the refs easier to read and less threatening. I am of the opinion that the citation templates (and most other templates) are excessively complicated, and insanely over-punctuated, so I try and simplify them down a bit. However, I can agree not to edit the pre-existing citation template refs as I have been doing.

I wonder, do you think editors here make much use of the Google Scholar facility? I had only just about heard of it... References I generate are always written without a template. I have put in over 5,000 references in plain text in-line cites in this wiki alone. No-one has complained about it. I would still urge editors not to use great long lists of co-authors. It makes some references into long threatening paragraphs of unreadable and uninteresting information.

On a related matter, I think templates should be edited down to simpler versions when they are brought over from English wiki. There are many examples where the infobox template we use on a page is far, far more complex than the text on that page. In order to achieve this, we should not give permission to import to any editor who has not regularly edited on this wiki. Templates which are already imported could be examined for possible simplifications. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Plain-text references are great, they're nice and easy to read when they're formatted properly. They don't support the metadata capabilities and I suppose the URLs get lost in print version, but there's absolutely nothing stopping anybody who wants to use that method. By the way, I was wondering whether you think and others might be better for us than et al?

Well, personally, I prefer et al. If readers are going to work with references (most don't) they will know what et al means, and it is international (latin has some uses after all!). We have it in List of Latin phrases (E). Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how mainstream Google Scholar is, it was just an example. There are lots of online databases that use that kind of data, like WorldCat is another -- usually I think students (or whatever) connect it with a library in their area, most major public and university libraries will have online reference management systems. If you're interested in it, there's a basic introduction here. I've just noticed that it's actually not working at the moment for some reason, but I will look into fixing it.

I will always agree with placing restrictions on new users copying over templates. I'm dealing with a bunch as we type and I've got another load to deal with that I've been putting off for days where the user has just blindly copied over a whole load and the templates don't actually work here. Infobox templates are a problem, and I try to simplify them wherever I can, especially the science ones. Osiris (talk) 10:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The Voyage of the Beagle

Hey, Mac, don't forget to put the specific version identifier in the attribution for this page. For more info about doing that, see Wikipedia:Transwiki attribution. Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 02:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Anthropomorphism

Why did you revert my edit? Proxima Centauri (talk) 06:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Related pages should be really clearly related, not just vaguely in the same territory. Morgan's canon is a specific theory of how experiments on animal behaviour should be interpreted. The relationship of Anthropomorphism to Morgan's canon is vague. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Macdonald-ross. You have new messages at Auntof6's talk page.
Message added 12:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Auntof6 (talk) 12:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Stem tetrapods

Can we have something to guide us as to when a page should be included in this category? Maybe an article on stem tetrapods, or a hatnote on the category explaining what they are? Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 02:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Help is there under Tetrapod#Stem tetrapods. The term is obviously informal, but is regularly used for these rather ambiguous Carboniferous specimens. You could say "some fishapods evolved into stem tetrapods". This, although quite outside the Linnaean system, would be understood immedately by any vertebrate palaeontologist. Stem tetrapods cease to be stem tetrapods when their fossils can be unambiguously identified as members of one of the three great taxonomic lines Amphibia, Synapsida or Sauropsida. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 09:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Removing Critical Legal Studies from requested articles

Why is the enwiki article not a suitable basis? Even if true, why is that a reason to remove the entry? Surely there doesn't have to be an enwiki article to request one here? --Auntof6 (talk) 06:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I was concerned that an editor here would regard that article as a suitable basis. It is not. The article is exceptionally badly written, even by En standards. Also, it is about a very specialised aspect of legal theory which would not connect well with our rather basic articles on law. If you let all proposals stand whatever, the suggestions as a whole gradually lose their usefulness. If we prune the list of bad advice, editors will gradually learn they can rely on the list for sensible advice. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

So you're saying people can't request articles unless there's a corresponding well-written enwiki article? I can't agree with that. By removing that item, you're telling the person who added it that they shouldn't want an article on that subject. How about making a note that the enwiki article might not be a good place to start (although that seems subjective), or waiting to see what gets created (if it gets created at all) and critiquing what ends up here?

As for connecting with our existing articles, I don't think that's a requirement for any new article. I'm also not sure what you mean by "advice": that page is a place for people to request articles, and we usually link to the enwiki article if there is one. I don't think that's meant to be advice, just a way of indicating what the requested article would be about. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

RfA

Hi, I have nominated you for adminship (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Macdonald-ross. Please give your opinion on the page. --Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Big Weekend

Hi, I have done another try for the Big Lakes Weekend, if you are interested please sign up here --Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 07:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Poor you....

Welcome to the club. -DJSasso (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations. Although I did not support, I am confident you will do well. Click here for the secret admin page. Kennedy ^(talk) 20:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Congrats! Please send me a mail, so I can add you to our admin mailinglist. If you are on IRC, feel free to poke me to get access to the admin channel and stuff. Have fun with the new tools and the responsibility that comes with them! -Barras talk 15:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

QD

May I know why you tagged this page instead of just deleting the page? You're an admin now! :P --Glaisher [talk] 10:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Not speaking for Macdonald-ross in this case but it is not unusual for that to happen. For example admins shouldn't delete their own notability QD tags. Some admins in the past have still just tagged articles for other admins to delete, though that happens more so on en.wiki than here. They usually do it because it allows for second opinions. I am sure in Macdonald-ross just forgot in this case. -DJSasso (talk) 11:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Space-time continuum

Thank you, Macdonald-ross, for cleaning up Space-time continuum. I had just opened the editor to revert back to that diff when I realized you had already done so. Thanks, I appreciate it. MJ94 (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK

Thanks for your DYK submission. We REALLY need an update. I added your hook to queue three. Maybe you can nominate another hook or suggested anything to my biographical hooks. I deleted the Copenhagen Zoo one because I couldn't fix the article plus with the pressure of that update SE needs. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for helping

The Big Lakes Weekend has now ended in all of the time zones. Thank you for your contributions to the Big Lakes Weekend (BLW). We have created 37 articles , made 129 edits to pages, 9 redirects. For more information on who did what please check out the organization page. I hope you had fun and liked creating all those articles and editing all those articles and I hope we get to do another Big Weekend sometime. Thanks again for helping. --Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 10:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Question

Why did you delete the Brightness page? I understand that I didin't add any new content, but there are references to that page on many articles Fargoth (talk) 10:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly not against an article with the title 'Brightness'. It will have to have real content, not just a definition. It will have to be accurate, and written in simple language. Actually, it is going to be difficult to write, because it refers to a psychological effect: it is an aspect of perception, how a light source looks to an observer. The English wiki article on Brightness [1] has a section on terminology which explains some of this. I think it might be difficult to translate into Simple English, but go ahead and try it if you want to. It is often best to try it first in a sandbox, and move it to an article when it is in good shape. Good luck! Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion you might be interested in

You were mentioned (indirectly) in a discussion at User talk:Mr Wiki Pro#Your VIP report on Looneyboy6. Just letting you know. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Months title

Hello, I just wanted to tell you that when you put a warning on someones page it would be better if you added the month as a title because if other users use Twinkle it add's it automaticly and then it gets mixed up. --Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know that. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Twinkle adds, for example "May 2014" to the title and if you don't the title will be below your warning and it will be confusing. --Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 08:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Yes, just to be clear, when you put a warning on a user talk page, please always put it under a heading. The heading is in the form "Month year" (such as "May 2014"). This helps other editors see what warnings have already been given, so they can decide what level the next warning should be. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)