User talk:First Light/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

IAB

Thank for the tips. Are you a member of IAB or just editing their page? I created it a few weeks ago and suggested the groups members improve the page. I built it so they would have a place to hang their hat. I'm not a member. It was flagged for deletion, but I don't know if it has been unflagged for that. My talk page received a message on that topic. I told some folks in the group and suggested they deal with it. My main interests are sedges, Arkansas flora, and becoming fluent in Chinese (see my talk page for details). Sedgehead (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Sedgehead

No, I'm not a member, I saw someone posting a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#International Association of Bryologists saying that the article was being threatened with deletion, and needed some references. A few other editors apparently saw the same note and also added some content and references. With those references, there is no longer a threat to the page being deleted. Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants is a very active project, with many experts and very helpful editors. If you ever need help with something, you can post at the project talk page: WT:PLANTS. I'm just a (very) amateur gardener with a particular interest in Salvia species. First Light (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Regarding the IAB article, new articles will often be (too) hastily nominated for deletion if they don't have Reliable Sources that are independent of the subject (i.e., not from the subject's own website). You'll be helped by reading the links in the Welcome message on your talk page. There are a lot of rules, policies, and guidelines here—too many—but trying to follow them the best you can will help make sure the content you add sticks around. First Light (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Saliva? I thought John Nelson at USCH (herbarium of the U of South Carolina) had all Saliva issues resolved! Thanks again for the help. I'll forward a link to this discussion to the folks at Bryonet who are interestedin keeping the IAB page in good health. Sedgehead (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Sedgehead

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Kew Bulletin

Hi. I saw your comment about the Kew Bulletin on the HighBeam page. There's some information I've been trying to track down regarding the Kew and since you are familiar with the publication, I was wondering if you could help. This comes from Amaranthus brownii:

During the 1981 expedition, A. bronwii seeds were collected by Sheila Conant and presented to the Waimea Arboretum on the Hawaiian island of Oahu and the Kew Gardens in London, England. Although the seeds at the Waimea Arboretum germinated and grew for a while, no plants survived beyond the stage of seedling development. Information about the outcome of the seeds sent to Kew Gardens is unavailable.

Any idea if the Kew Bulletin might say anything about this? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything at Highbeam in their Kew Bulletins (which only includes issues between 2000-2008). The Kew website also has nothing about that plant—their site is typically thorough in showing results. I suspect it's not mentioned in any Kew Bulletin issues. At HighBeam, there is an excellent and lengthy article about the plant from Beacham's Guide to the Endangered Species of North America (2000). That says, "There are no known plants or seeds in any botanical collection." There is also a great deal of other good info in that article, which I can email to you if you're interested. First Light (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. I already have Beacham's and I'm using it in the current article. I don't think they are aware of the Kew sample as I found that in primary sources. Viriditas (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

You might try emailing them, perhaps finding the email on their site of someone who is in the plant or greenhouse department (as opposed to the front desk). I emailed them recently to point out a couple of errors in their relatively new Kew Plant List, and received a quick response.

(p.s. Though I guess I'm assuming you might be interested in the information itself, not just for the WP article). First Light (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Correct on all counts. Thanks for the advice and guidance. Viriditas (talk) 08:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Science lovers wanted!

Science lovers wanted!

Hi! I'm serving as the wikipedian-in-residence at the Smithsonian Institution Archives until June! One of my goals as resident, is to work with Wikipedians and staff to improve content on Wikipedia about people who have collections held in the Archives - most of these are scientists who held roles within the Smithsonian and/or federal government. I thought you might like to participate since you are interested in the sciences! Sign up to participate here and dive into articles needing expansion and creation on our to-do list. Feel free to make a request for images or materials at the request page, and of course, if you share your successes at the outcomes page you will receive the SIA barnstar! Thanks for your interest, and I look forward to your participation! Sarah (talk) 02:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Signature in AfD

Hello, I think that you forgot to sign your input in the AfD for The Legacy Movement. Thanks! And Adoil Descended (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I sure did — thanks for pointing that out. First Light (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

For future reference, the usual procedure is for editors to use {{unsigned}} to retrospectively label such comments. (This can be done by any editor, not just the one leaving the comment, per WP:REFACTOR.) -- Trevj (talk) 09:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

resource request

Hi,

I've uploaded the two articles that you requested at the resource exchange. You can find the links at that page.

Best, GabrielF (talk) 04:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Very much appreciated! I've downloaded both of them. First Light (talk) 04:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Salvia hybrids

Hi, great List of Salvia species, which seems to be largely your work. I wondered what you thought about adding some of the horticultural hybrids, like S. × jamensis. If added, should they be in a separate section or among the species? Peter coxhead (talk) 07:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know - that's a good question. I would tend to go by what is the common practice with other List of x species pages, but I can't seem to find any pattern. I asked User:Rkitko for his opinion, since I've asked him before about the List of Salvia species page, and he has worked on some other species list pages (and I think he may have even answered this question a long time ago). Some of the horticultural hybrids are far more notable than many of the species, so they should be somewhere easily noticeable. First Light (talk) 22:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd think it should even be a separate list. The list of species is already long (as I would expect it to be for this genus) and a horticultural hybrid is a very different beast from a species found in nature. Would anyone expect to find a list of the man-made hybrids in the list of species? Even natural hybrids should be separate lists, IMHO, e.g. List of Nepenthes natural hybrids. I think when discussing horticultural hybrids you get into that fun zone of figuring out if something's notable enough to be listed. And would a list of horticultural hybrids also include the cultivars generated from those hybrids? So... what to call the list then? Rkitko ^(talk) 23:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Expanding on Rkitko's response, I agree that natural hybrids should be separated from both species and artificially created hybrids. One measure of notability is the existence of a binomial under the ICN (either named as a hybrid, e.g. Salvia × jamensis J.Compton, or pro sp.--I don't have a Salvia example at hand).--Curtis Clark (talk) 00:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense to have two separate list articles for natural and artificial hybrids. I see, though, that many/most of the horticulturally notable hybrids don't seem to have an official ICN name. We have articles on a few of those, who also have dubious parentage: Salvia 'Celestial Blue', Salvia 'Jean's Purple Passion', Salvia 'Indigo Spires'. Then there is the very confusing Salvia × superba, which according the Kew Plantlist is Salvia × sylvestris L.[1], even though the IPN link on that page points to Salvia sylvestris L.[2], and which has numerous other names and cultivar names. There are some others on the Kew Plantlist which have the hybrid × symbol, but which link to an IPNI page without the ×. See Salvia × auriculata Mill.[3] and Salvia auriculata[4]]. What does that mean? Thanks for all of the help. First Light (talk) 04:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Salvia × auriculata is an example of Article H.10.2. of the Vienna Code:

H.10.2. Taxa previously published as species or infraspecific taxa which are later considered to be nothotaxa may be indicated as such, without change of rank, in conformity with Art. 3 and 4 and by the application of Art. 50 (which also operates in the reverse direction).

There's no formal set of requirements for publishing, and even the page at theplantlist.org suffices to indicate the authors' opinion that it is a hybrid.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Reading these interesting responses, and thinking about it some more, it now seems to me that there's a more general issue here, namely how to handle genera which have a strong botanical and horticultural interest. Salvia is a good example, but there are many others – some that spring to mind because I've worked on them a bit are Hemerocallis, Hosta and Hippeastrum. All of them have a significant number of naturally occurring species plus many artificial hybrids and cultivars. I agree that where there's enough information to warrant more than one article, the botanical and horticultural aspects should be kept separate, i.e. the answer to my original question is that the horticultural hybrids should not be added to the list of species. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

That sounds right—it would also allow for introductory paragraphs explaining the significance of the horticultural hybrids, for example. Thanks again to everyone for the education. First Light (talk) 00:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening COTM

The current monthly WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening collaborations are: Blanching (horticulture) Damping off Gertrude Jekyll Horticultural flora Square foot gardening The next collaborations will be posted on July 1, 2012. To propose future collaborations, please contribute here!

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Salvia_microphylla_neurepia.jpg

Hello, Do you accept to copy this picture

to the Wikimedia Commons ? JPaul (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and thank you for asking. First Light (talk) 01:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Keśin

Yngvadottir (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk another look at Kompressor move requst, please

Hi there. You recently commented at my move request for Kompressor. Another editor has some significant information, and in light of that, I'd like to withdraw my request, but I can't unless there is unanimous opposition. Can you take a look and consider changing your !vote to oppose? Thanks. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 23:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I changed my support there. First Light (talk) 01:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

• Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For your valuable contribution to slimming the Celebrate Recovery article. Jschnur (talk) 22:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! ....and I thought it was going to be a thankless task. First Light (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Removing material as linkspam

Hi, I see you have made some constructive edits to remove linkspam, but this strikes me as unnecessary. What's the distinction between the electronic versions that you removed, and the ChristianBook link which you allowed to remain? The volume will very likely be purchased more as digital versions than on paper, so its availability in those formats is IMHO germane to the encyclopedia. FYI, I'm a reader, not a publisher. – Fayenatic London 23:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

After discovering an IP adding links to logos.com products, purely as promotional spam, I found quite a few logos.com product pages linked in various articles. I left some logos.com links that were bios about authors. That logos.com link you mention was an order page for a product, with no value as a reference or mention in the article. That "Availability" section could have been renamed "Order Now", so I took out the whole section, including a link to another commercial site/page. So in my opinion, there is no question regarding that removal. I wasn't looking for promotional links to other companies, so I didn't notice that one you mention. It's actually being used as a reference, for those book awards and also a testimonial, probably from the dust jacket of the book. I found a better source for the book awards from an educational website, and have just replaced the more promotional one, which didn't qualify as a reliable source, anyway. Thanks for pointing that out. I was in a hurry to get rid of as much of the spam in as short a time as possible. First Light (talk) 00:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I guess I may have not answered your question directly. I don't recall other books having a section with links to order the various versions of the book, whether a kindle or electronic version, or a print copy. I think that even doing that in the External links section would be considered promotional/spam. I'm more than willing to be wrong on this - I couldn't find a policy that addressed this very directly. First Light (talk) 04:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

But now you've taken out even more, including the denominational background of the writers, and a notable response from a highly-placed teacher in another denomination. IMHO that removed valid encyclopedic material. Also, the fact that this book is available in multiple formats can be stated even without links; it's easily verified, and the evidence could be stated on the talk page if it's really wrong to include links in the article. Would that be permissible? – Fayenatic London 00:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said to another editor who reverted back a logos.com product page link, who insisted it wasn't a product page, I won't edit war over this, or belabor the issue any more than this: a logos.com book product page is not a Reliable Source by any stretch of the imagination. I understand that different WikiProjects and editors have their own interpretations of policies, and my own standard of reliable sourcing is probably way, way higher than most. Since the information is not at all controversial, it's not a big deal to me, quite sincerely, and probably improves the article.

You also caught me with my dander up, mid-stream in reverting four years of slow motion spamming of logos.com product pages—216.57.209.252 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)—by an employee of logos.com, since the IP address is that of the Logos Research Systems email server, geo-located at the Logos company headquarters in Bellingham, Washington.[5]. So do please forgive my over-reaction to something that wasn't worth it. If you put the same link back, on the article page, I wouldn't oppose it, nor would my blood pressure even go up :-). First Light (talk) 00:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I reinstated the ChristianBook link rather than Logos to source the factoids taken from the blurb, and mentioned additional software products. – Fayenatic London 16:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, and honestly, I'm fine with whatever you think is best to do there. I'm not familiar with that particular area of Christianity, so do what best serves the reader - that's always the bottom line for me. And I trust you enough to be impartial in that regard (and my dander is down enough now) that I'm not even watching the article. Thanks, First Light (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. When you recently edited Vitae Patrum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rufinus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 03:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

resource request

Hi First Light,

I've uploaded an article that you requested at the resource exchange. You can find a link to the article on that page. Best, GabrielF (talk) 16:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

PlantFiles on DavesGarden.com

Hello! I noticed on my Watchlist that you have been removing some links that do not meet the criteria for external links as given in WP:EL. One of those you removed is links to species pages on PlantFiles. I added the link because it is a useful page to direct readers to, but looking at the policy page, I don't know whether it should or should not be included based on the criteria given. I'm wondering what your rationale for removing it is; which of the criteria for links that should not be added does it fulfill? — Eru·tuon 00:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It fulfills the following at links that should not be added (I'll just put the number, and you can look it up): 1 (the site is not a Reliable Source by any stretch of the imagination, and does not have information that would add to a featured article) ; 10/11 (the site is part forum/discussion group and part blogs by people who are not recognized as experts in the field); 12 (it's basically an open wiki in some parts). That said, I've been a member of Davesgarden for about seven years and find it to be a great community to hang out and share photos, ideas, and personal experiences. The 'personal experiences' part is only one reason why it isn't a reliable source, and shouldn't be linked from Wikipedia articles. These types of user-created sites have been discussed frequently at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants, and always found to be unreliable for information about plants. Academic books and journal articles are ideal, and usually plentiful, for articles on scientific subjects here, such as plants. WikiProject Plants is a great place to find help in general, and with specific questions such as the one you raise. First Light (talk) 00:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I took a look at the specific link you pointed to, just to use as an example of how davesgarden.com shouldn't be used here. For one thing, all that page lists is the basic 'facts' for growing: height, spacing, US hardiness zone (remember that many Wikipedia readers don't reside in the U.S.), sun/shade, bloom color/time. The davesgarden.com Cyclamen rohlfsianum page doesn't have the usual comments and photos added by gardeners, which is a plus in this case. But I compared the height listed there to somewhat more reliable sources for information on the plant, such as plant societies and nurseries, since I couldn't find any good book or journal sources. Two sources I found give the height as 10cm,[6][7] and another says up to 11.5cm.,[8] while davesgarden.com gives 15-30cm for the height. That's quite a disparity. But even if davesgarden.com were to get some of the facts right, there's no way of knowing where they are getting their information from, because they don't give their sources. All of which says it doesn't help the Wikipedia reader to link to websites that have user-generated content, or who don't have a reputation for fact-checking and reliability. First Light (talk) 02:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Another barnstar for you!

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For your valuable contributions to the reliability of Wikipedia by removing or replacing poor quality sources of botanical and horticultural information.

I have to confess that I have often given up when faced with the apparently endless stream of unreliable information sourced to horticultural companies or blogs. You clearly have not! Carry on the good work. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you - you made my wiki-day. I get on these occasional campaigns to get rid of those non-reliable user created sites, and was expecting another upset editor when I saw the orange 'you have a message' bar. That particular site I've been pruning has been around long enough to have been used early in Wikipedia's history, when "reliable source" = "on the internet," so there was a lot of dead wood there. First Light (talk) 15:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Asphodeline lutea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Parkinson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks bot! Keep those reminders coming. First Light (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Quoted you

here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, and good luck with that. I won't be surprised if someday I read an article in a mainstream news source or medical journal that features a collection of the "best" medical advice given at the Wikipedia Reference Desk. First Light (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The World's 100 Most Threatened Species, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jeju (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening COTM

The current WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening Collaborations are: Hobby farm Raised bed gardening Sustainable gardening Urban horticulture Vermicompost The next collaborations will be posted on April 1, 2012. (Contribute here)

WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening COTM

The current monthly WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening collaborations are: Cash crop Energy crop Plant ecology Seedling Tropical horticulture The next collaborations will be posted on May 1, 2012. (Contribute here!)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

1. Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter

Hey First Light. I'm dropping you a note because you used to (or still do!) patrol new pages. This is just to let you know that we've deployed and developed Page Curation, which augments and supersedes Special:NewPages - there are a lot of interesting new features :). There's some help documentation here if you want to familiarise yourself with the system and start using it. If you find any bugs or have requests for new features, let us know here. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for The World's 100 Most Threatened Species

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Saint

Sorry for being difficult. I should have just started a discussion on the talk page. But I'm happy with the way it turned out. --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 07:45, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The term really is used by far more than just historians of religion - it's a very commonly used English term for those of sanctity in most religions. But it will need some more references to support that. I hope to do that, though real life has me busy right now. If and when I do, I'll also start a discussion on the talk page, and perhaps post on a few noticeboards. Thanks for starting a discussion about this. First Light (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok. But I would still like to maintain that this usage is rare (at least in Judaism, I can't speak for other religions). --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 08:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Extremely common in other religions, though in Judaism it may be less common. Just Google (books) "Hindu saints" and you'll see among the 12,000 results a slew of academic and reliable sources, along with popular usage by Indian authors. The term even has its own Library of Congress subject heading. Google (books) "Buddhist saints" and the usage is even more common (19,600 results). And then there is "Sufi saints" with over 30,000 uses in books, popular and academic. If anything, Thompson Gale is shortselling the usage ("Historians of religion have liberated the category of sainthood from its narrower Christian associations"). Historians of religion are only acknowledging what has been common for almost two centuries, which is how far out of date the Wikipedia article has been :-). First Light (talk) 15:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

From quick Google books search, it seems that traditional terms like Tzaddik for Jews and Wali for Muslims is still a bit more common than Saint, although Saint seems to be more common than I expected (that's what I call academic bias). --- Wikitiki89 (talk) - 16:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Editor Help

Hey there, I'm a student revising the Chia Seed wikipedia page for a college project and was wondering if you could look at my work in a few days and try to give me any pointers. Thanks!Wclevid (talk) 14:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC) Wclevid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wclevid (talk • contribs) 14:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll be happy to watch and offer suggestions. Several other editors also watch that page, so don't be surprised to see some of your edits being 'fixed' or changed. First Light (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

P.S. If you look at the history of the article, you can see all the edits made to it, hopefully with an explanation of why the edit was made. 15:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

And one more note - the article has been a battleground at times. New editors sometimes have unpleasant experiences when they wade into such articles unknowingly. Read the article's talk page (Talk:Salvia_hispanica) to get an idea of issues that have come up in the past. First Light (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

List of Rhododendron species

Nice job. -Fjozk (talk) 04:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, the article is certainly worthy of improvement. And I'm fine with your re-assessment—those things are so subjective that I rarely have a real opinion one way or the other. First Light (talk) 19:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, great choice for a list article. They are subjective, but I saw somewhere, once, how plants or one of the other organism projects does it, top are things like the main topic, Plant, Angiosperm, Botany, Photosynthesis, high would be maybe APGIII clades, major plants such as, maybe Amborella, not sure, then mid would be the orders, and low would be family, genera, species. I can't always figure them out, so if I change one, I do invite a discussion to hash it out. You're continuing to do a great job on the list. -Fjozk (talk) 03:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Article you requested per fair use

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/9158964/Goetsch.PDF

Please let me know when you are done. Churn and change (talk) 04:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! - I've downloaded it. First Light (talk) 04:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Help

Hi First Light,

Thank you for your attention in the article Chilean corvette O'Higgins (1866). You (may) have noted that English is not my first language, therefore I try to build the sentences as simple as possible. I used "She arrived ...", "she had an active role ..." and "she sided ..." because I have seen such syntax in many other ship articles like HMS Albion (1802). The editors of the article used also "she" for the ship in question:

• She was launched at Perry's Blackwall Yard on the Thames on 17 June 1802.
• She was broken up at Chatham Dockyard in 1836.
• she became flagship of Rear Admiral George Cockburn ...

May be that the reader is confused because at the beginning of the article are mentioned two ships (O'Higgins and Chacabuco).

Why did you object the sentence?.

I thanks in advance for improving the wikipedia (and my English), --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for asking about this! I couldn't tell if English was your first language or not, and thought the tag on the article might get someone (perhaps you) to work on improving it. I'm happy to do that, but can't do it at this moment. Later today, or perhaps tomorrow, I'll edit the article, and explain here the reasons for each edit. And then remove that tag. You do have the right idea with the fact that two ships are mentioned in the article first, but there is a bit more to it than that. First Light (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

My problem is that I have no idea if and how much the reader understand my pidgin, so, any help is welcome. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 17:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Your English is well above pidgin level, believe me. I was guessing that the article was written by an American with lazy language skills (as Americans can be with the English language sometimes) — so that means your English is already on the level of many Americans :-). After a few times reading the article, I generally understood what it meant, but tagged it to see if my misconceived lazy American might improve it. Anyways, keep writing articles, because you did a good job with this one.

So, the changes that I made:

• Yes, you did mention two ships in the first paragraph, so from just reading the article, it might be hard to tell which one you were referring to the first time you mentioned "she." I know the article title was only referring to one of them, but best writing practice would be to mention the O'Higgins by name the first time, then use a pronoun.
• I see that I'm completely wrong regarding "she", now that I look at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Guidelines. It approves of the practice, so you could use "she," just be sure that the first usage follows the mention of the O'Higgins. Asking such questions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships would be a good idea if you're going to write more ship articles. I'm not a ship person, so I'm not very used to seeing ships described as "she."
• I upgraded the references, using this very cool tool: [9]. You just copy and paste the Google book URL to the specific page, if the book allows Preview, and the app will create a full reference for you.
• Finally, the very last sentence is unclear, and grammatically incomplete: "During the 1891 Chilean Civil War the O'Higgins sided with the congress." A ship can't "side" with one side or another in a battle, because the ship isn't an animate object that can choose. It would be better to say something like "During the 1891 Chilean Civil War the O'Higgins was used by the congress....".

It's an interesting article, and well worth having on Wikipedia!

First Light (talk) 22:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I also added the WikiProject tags to the talk page, for WikiProject Ships and WikiProject Chile. First Light (talk) 22:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, First Light. I fear that if write another ship article I could became the first naval hero of wikipedia. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 12:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Considering the grief one has to go through here at times, you might even get a posthumous award for heroism :-).

Disambiguation link notification for November 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Salvia eremostachya (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Specific epithet

Salvia funerea (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Specific epithet

Salvia greatae (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Specific epithet

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

JSTOR

Hi there. You're one of the first 100 people to sign up for a free JSTOR account via the requests page. We're ready to start handing out accounts, if you'd still like one.

JSTOR will provide you access via an email invitation, so to get your account, please email me (swallingwikimedia.org) with...

• the subject line "JSTOR"
• your English Wikipedia username
• your preferred email address for a JSTOR account

The above information will be given to JSTOR to provide you with your account, but will otherwise remain private. Please do so by November 30th or drop me a message to say you don't want/need an account any longer. If you don't meet that deadline, we will assume you have lost interest, and will provide an account to the next person in the rather long waitlist.

Thank you! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Done, and thank you! First Light (talk) 06:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

About bird caps RFC closure

I put that comment in the template because the discussion was influenced by Apteva, a user who was perceived as a disruptive user by other editors. I later noticed that he went off to other pages to do other things for his own purposes. Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 03:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It was still a personal attack, and there is no excuse for that. Comment on the discussion, not on the editor. First Light (talk) 03:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

From WP:No personal attacks:

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other contributors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks.

Replaced with "inactivity". Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 00:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you ! I'm also leaving a comment on your talk page. First Light (talk) 02:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Petunia exserta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stigma (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for your welcome!

I'm feeling my way around trying to learn how to do things, and hopefully I don't make to many mistakes in the process!

Best, Ennora

Ennora (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, and good luck editing. We all make mistakes, and usually there is a helpful editor to steer us on the right track. First Light (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Holiday cheer

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt my talk page is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.

Question for you

Thank you for the welcome! I am wondering something about Wikipedia. Is it okay to ask Jimmy Wales about items that may cast Wikipedia in a bad light? I have seen him deleting numerous comments lately about Kazakhstan, and I am worried that he is too annoyed with criticism. - Checking the checkers (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't speak for him. I have his talk page on my watchlist because broader community issues are often brought there, almost as a community forum. When he does reply, it's usually done thoughtfully. I have seen him lose patience when people repeatedly attack him for some perceived wrong in the world. He is unlikely to respond to the question you've placed there, though, since he can't police or give his opinion on every single article on Wikipedia. I go to specific WikiProjects for more specialized help, or ask at one of the many Noticeboards. If you are looking for help with that article, from people who specialize in such things, ask your question at the Conflict of interest Noticeboard. First Light (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I stand corrected - Jimbo answered your questions. First Light (talk) 02:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Euphorbia Leuconeura

Hello First Light,

and many thanks for commenting on my editing of the Euphorbia Leuconeura stub, which was in origin (I think) a translation of the French wiki. I think a much better start for a full article would be the German wiki. Unfortunately my French is a lot better than my German, so I just tried to add to the French-based stub, using also direct observation of one Leucocera I bought many years ago (between 20 and 40), and two more I've grown from its seeds.

Before I go on to more edits, I'd like to discuss two changes you made to my edits to date.

Concerning the greatest height of the plant, I wrote "1.8 m (almost six feet)" and you changed it to "1.8 m (5.9 feet)". In my opinion, 1.8 meter (which I took from the German wikipedia) is not meant as an exact value but only indicative of a range between, say, 1.7 and 1.9; it is misleading to pinpoint it as 5.9 feet. I'm not sure what to do, considering also that there is more to it. The German site says, in (Google-helped) translation:

Euphorbia leuconeura is an erect, usually unbranched, stem succulent shrub that reaches heights of growth up to 180 cm, when the tap root can grow down far enough.

I'm tempted to insert this in en.wikipedia as it is, leaving out the conversion of 180 cm to feet (but in any case I'd convert 180 cm to 1.8 m, because the cm is not an SI approved unit, and anyhow one cannot measure a plant this size with centimeter accuracy). You're welcome to improve the English of this sentence, which still sounds like German in translation. Also, I suspect most readers would not know off-hand what a "stem succulent" is (it's a plant that stores water in its stem, as opposed to a leaf succulent). There is no Stem succulent entry in en.wikipedia, although the distinction between types of succulents is made clear in the Succulent entry. The importance of a tap root should probably be mentioned: my old Leuconeura, which has no tap root, is only 80 cm tall and seems full grown. On the other hand, I've seen a Leuconeura in the Helsinki Arboretum that was much taller than mine and was growing indoors, presumably in a pot, without a deep tap root. I guess that, unlike my Leuconeura, it got the right amount of water at the right time of the year.

Next,I'd like to know why you have deleted the reference to http://davesgarden.com/guides/pf/go/64943/ with the comment that it is not a reliable source, even in the loosest sense of the term. On the contrary, I found this source more reliable and informative than the old en.wikipedia stub or its sources. First, it correctly states that Leuconeura likes Partial to Full Shade, (with Full Shade listed one line below, and thus less desirable, I presume). This agrees with my direct experience and the German Wikipedia, and is contrary to the requirement of full sun in the French Wikipedia. Second, Dave's Garden has many photos of Leuconeura that are as good as those in Wikimedia. For instance, anybody who has E. Leuconeura in a pot will immediately recognize that it is the plant pictured in http://davesgarden.com/guides/pf/showimage/50977/.

Dave's Garden also has information about hardiness that I could not find anywhere else. And it gives correctly the height of the plant, when grown in a pot (see above for the tap root story). Maybe we could list Dave's Garden as an Additional Source, or something, rather than as a Reference? If so, please help, I don't know how to do it.

Perhaps the problem is not that the source is unreliable, but that it has the .com extension, or something else that irks Wikipedia. If that's the case, please let me know.

Vtorcelli (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback and questions. Regarding davesgarden.com, you can read this discussion for starters. English Wikipedia has very effective and clear standards for what is a Reliable Source. For scientific botanical information, that would have to be an academic source (university published books or website); a trusted authority in the field (Kew, Missouri Botanical Gardens, etc., which have websites); or at worst a horticultural guide published by a trusted publisher. While davesgarden.com might be "accurate" for that information that you added, it doesn't make it a Wikipedia "Reliable Source." In fact, as I pointed out in that discussion, it was inaccurate for the only information I ever tried to verify there.

That aside, davesgarden.com just doesn't meet Wikipedia standards for reliable sourcing. You'll find that other long time plant editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants will concur. I've actually been a member at davesgarden.com for quite a few years, and find some of the information there helpful. But it doesn't have a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy" per WP:RS, and is essentially a blog/forum/self-published website. WikiProject Plants, by the way, is a great group of editors, including some professionals in the field of plants, who are always very helpful.

I tend to use those conversion templates because they are so accurate, and I've seen it as a common practice on plant articles. I don't have a strong feeling about that particular use in the article. When I've been faced with a height that is a range, I'll either say that it grows "up to approximately x m/ft" or give a range for it. The conversion templates allow for that. You can see an example at User:First Light/Tools. But if you feel the original would be more accurate, I'm fine with that.

When I get a chance, I'll go over the english in the article. I see that the Succulent plant article has several photos of "stem succulent"s. It might be worthy of an article. That's the kind of thing I would ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants — that's because I'm just an avid gardener with some training, but very little botanical expertise (I'm not counting my one year of university on the subject). First Light (talk) 23:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

p.s. Also see this comment from a longtime plant editor regarding those sources, and referring to the very one we're discussing. First Light (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Working out the details at Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement

The RFC for TAFI is nearing it's conclusion, and it's time to hammer out the details over at the project's talk page. There are several details of the project that would do well with wider input and participation, such as the article nomination and selection process, the amount and type of articles displayed, the implementation on the main page and other things. I would like to invite you to comment there if you continue to be interested in TAFI's development. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

An invitation for you!

	Hello, First Light. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's article for improvement. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members. Happy editing! Northamerica1000(talk) 00:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Umeboshi

Umeboshi is made through a well-known process called "lactic acid fermentation." This is the same process by which almost all other naturally fermented vegetable foods are made. It produces, obviously, lactic acid. Not citric acid, which is the acid that, obviously, comes from citrus fruits. Which plums and apricots are not.

Here is a page on an umeboshi producer's website describing the process. Note that it discussed lactic acid. http://www.mitoku.com/products/umeboshi/making_umeboshi.html

I honestly could give half of a f-- whether you put my correction back. As you might have noticed, I don't even have an account here. But you should be aware that many of us anonymous editors actually know a thing or two about the edits we make. If you don't, just know that you are making this project worse. It is objectively, verifiably, true that lactic acid makes umiboshi sour. 76.105.194.158 (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, and my apologies. The single source I looked up to check that said "citric acid" — so I assumed that your edit was incorrect. I should have researched it further, but didn't. It had nothing to do with the fact that it was an IP edit. My bad. I've reverted my edit. First Light (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Almost 2 years ago, I created an account so that I could propose a move from Aluminium to Alumin(i)um. While I understood the rationale behind the negative responses, the way some of the editors responded was fairly disappointing, especially since I was new. Your response was "Clever idea, though! But creating a new spelling that nobody uses isn't the answer." and I thought I'd drop by and say thanks. Ryan Vesey 00:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing that! It's encouraging to actually hear that being nice (or at least not snarky) to other editors is appreciated. There can be so much snark here at times, it's a wonder that we have as many editors as we do, and even more of a wonder that the good-natured ones remain. And it really was a clever idea. Glad you decided to stick around, especially after that introduction. First Light (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The page was move protected, imagine the reception I would have received had I been able to move it and did (that was my initial intention, not knowing any of Wikipedia's policies and not knowing I couldn't). On reflection, it's easy to forget how much new editors don't know, I'll be working to be more like you in my relations with new editors. Ryan Vesey 03:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I know, it really is a minefield that new editors are walking into. I was lucky enough to land at WikiProject Plants, which has many very helpful and knowledgeable editors. It takes just seeing a few like that to give one hope that this place is worth sticking with. Even with all that, I still forget what it's like for new editors, and can get too short with them at times. First Light (talk) 05:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Saints project scope,

I saw your comments at Pass a Method's essay, and just wanted to point out one thing. FWIW, I myself have no objections to there being some sort of focused group on religious calendars in general and the individuals who are commemorated in them. And, FWIW, that is basically the criterion by which individuals are determined to be "saints" in Christianity. I was even responsible for the creation of the religious biography workgroup of WikiProject Religion, because I thought that the other religious traditions should be able to benefit from similar focused effort. But, pretty much ever since it was founded, and it has been around here longer than I have myself, WikiProject Saints was specifically focused on Christian saints, and, actually, I think more clearly specifically Catholic saints in the beginning before I and some others got involved.

One of the problems with a lot of saints of other faiths is trying to find a clearly non-controversial source wbich specifically states person X is a saint. Most academic sources aren't written by specialists in the field of "sainthood," but at the same time it is hard to disagree that, if the Roman Catholic church (or for that matter the Orthodox churches, Anglican church, or Luthern church) has in some way formally recognized someone as a "saint", the person can reasonably be called a saint. Unfortunately, I don't know how many other faiths actually use the same word for the same concept, and there are some SYNTH/OR problems in lumping them together as the same thing when the religions involved don't themselves necessarily agree on identity.

I started some work some time ago trying to get together lists of religious holidays around the world as a way of maybe getting an indication which individuals are considered by other faiths to be "saints" or their internal equivalent. Unfortunately, I haven't found that many sources for non-Christian "liturgical calendars" in general, so the effort was somewhat stymied. If you know of any sources which could be used to help gather together lists of people considered holy in other faiths, I would myself welcome seeing maybe a new subproject of WikiProject Religion proposed to get a bit more focused attention on those articles, and on the religious calendars themselves as well. John Carter (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that most of the disconnect is between the official manner that Catholic and some other Christian saints are made saints, and those of other religions. But even in Christianity there isn't much agreement (though there is some overlap) between Catholicism, and different Protestant and Orthodox churches. But the term "saint" is so widely used now as an English-language term rather than a Christian term that I thought it would be helpful to desegregate the saints from different religions. It really has become a commonly used word in conversation with people from different religions, based on my own experience, in addition to comparative religion sources. My proposal would have been that the term "saint" would need to be applied by a reliable source or by a multitude of sectarian sources of a particular religion.

Even on Wikipedia the term "saint" is already commonly applied, with 101 articles in Category:Sufi saints, over 200 in Category:Hindu saints (counting subcategories), and a smattering of other categorized saints from different religions. Other religions don't take the liturgical calendar approach, because they aren't as organized and official about their saints.

At some point I might be more interested in compiling a list of saints from all religions that would meet the specifications I just mentioned. As I mentioned at Pass a Method's RfC, I'm not interested in reviving my effort. I feel that in order for my proposal to have successfully worked, the door would have to have be opened from within WikiProject Saints, rather than being battered down from outside. That's why I didn't advertise the idea to the other religion WikiProjects, even though it involved those other religions. I'm also not interested in Pass a Method's approach or in how he perceives such an egregious level of systemic bias.

Finally, my comment at that RfC wasn't addressing you directly, even though you were the only person to respond to my proposal. I very much appreciate what you bring to the Religion articles and projects. The fact that nobody opened the door to my suggestion at WikiProject Saints with an invitation to enter spoke volumes to me. It's not worth the time and effort, for possibly no gain, to make any sort of fuss about it. There are too many other things that need doing here, and I've seen that contentious discussions usually tend to mean less productive improvement to Wikipedia. Thank you for your comments here, and at WikiProject Saints. First Light (talk) 01:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Many don't have the liturgical calendar as a sort of universal standard, true, although there generally are, from what I remember in Hinduism anyway, generally some sort of celebration on either the birth or death date of the individual, which basically amounts to the same thing, at least in the local calendar of that temple. Regarding the belief that you would need support of the Saints project, that group's talk page, like those of a lot of other Christianity wikiprojects, is more or less dead in a lot of regards, and there isn't much activity there in the first place, let alone interest in changing the scope of the project.

Some of the other matters are somewhat problematic. I remember in hinduism a previous discussion which indicated that in several cases they use the word "saint" in English as more or less a transliteration of their own "sant", but without anything like a similar meaning. For Muslims, I think it would make sense that any who have some sort of popular or folk devotion, even if that is contrary to Muhammad's word, could reasonably be counted and saints, based on the popular veneration, but don't myself know that many sources discussing the individuals so honored.

Honestly, at this point, so far as I can see, many if not most of the WikiProjects and groups out there are becoming inactive, because in many or most cases the editors involved have done the basic work to get their topic covered. The harder work of finding which topics are encyclopedic, but not covered here yet, and finding sources to improve the more difficult topics, in an NPOV way, which is even harder, is when a lot become inactive. So, personally, I would welcome any sort of activity which might help get much if any new attention to some of these topics, from whatever basis.

There is, or at least was, at some point, a book at the Saint Louis University library here describing "saints in other religions" in some way. I can try to find that book, if they still have it, in the next week or so. That book, I think, would at least help deal with the one real question I see about expansion, and that is finding some sort of source which can be counted on to not present a minority opinion within a given faith, but the opinion of a sizable enough group to merit such description. If I can find it, I can gather together a list of articles from it, and then I might suggest that the Religion WikiProject create a new subgrouping for saints in other religions, including at least those discussed in the book, and any others who meet the criteria for inclusion in that book, assuming it has any, who might have arisen since then. Let me check, and I'll try to remember to get back to you next week. If I don't, drop me a note to remind me. John Carter (talk) 03:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You're right, saints in other religions typically have at least one notable day that is celebrated, so that would be one way to organize a list. Regarding the Saints project, I didn't feel that I 'needed' the support of that WikiProject as much as I didn't want it to seem like a hostile takeover - we have enough of that in the world of religion already :-) (wars, etc.). I do think a fresh start of a new subproject would be the best way to do this, but only if there is interest. We probably don't need another dormant or dead WikiProject.

I've heard people try to make a point out of comparing "sant" to "saint" but I don't think it's a valid one, at least from the perspective of linguistics. But in common usage, "sant" seems to have a much broader meaning than "saint." That's one more reason to use only reliable sources that apply "saint" to a person, to avoid the original research involved with other approaches.

I would be interested in at least the name of that book you mention, and even the names of those they call saints. I've been compiling a list of such resources (reliable sources that clearly apply "saint" to specific non-Christian holy people), for when I do have the time to start something more ambitious. Thanks again for the thought you are putting in to this. First Light (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

There is already a basically moribund Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Religious leaders work group, which has never really taken off. It could easily be adjusted and repackaged to deal with individuals who have either been "leaders" in some way of groups, including founders of groups, for instance, as well as include those individuals who are or have been in some way actively commemorated by religious groups, like Muslim/Sufi saints, for instance. In general, with the exception of Martin Luther and I think only a few others, the founders of religious traditions tend to be regarded as "saints" or the equivalent by their followers, so it wouldn't be that much of a pronounced change for the group to be changed to include not only founders of groups, but also individuals who are or have been in some way actively commemorated by religious traditions. If that proposal seems reasonable to you, maybe the best place to go would be the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion page and propose it, so we can see whether it has any other support, although, given the moribund nature of the group, it would probably be possible to just be bold and make the changes, and maybe announce them on the Religion project talk page. John Carter (talk) 17:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea - let me chew on that for a while. I'm not ready to do this yet, waiting until I have the time, and also more clarity around the idea. I'm still leaning toward a new workgroup (not wanting to put new wine into old skins, and all that...). And if there is no staying power, then I also wouldn't go ahead — we don't need one more moribund project or work group.... First Light (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

And I will try, yes, I know I've said this before, to check for IRS sources which deal with the subject. As someone who put together a lot of wikiprojects and work groups over the years, many of which have become inactive, the one thing I can think of that they really might be useful for is providing information on sources to find information on the subject, like, for instance, reference sources like encyclopedias. Even if a group does become inactive, as so many do, providing that basic information in and of itself might be useful, if I can in time get together the time and energy to make lists like the one at Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism/Encyclopedic articles and others like it. That sort of information, in and of itself, would probably be at least somewhat useful for individuals interested in further developing a topic. And, honestly, I personally think a more focused work group, like one on saints/founders, would probably be a lot more likely to create such lists for anyway. John Carter (talk) 02:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll get back to you when I'm done chewing on this and ready to do something. In the meantime, any good sources you find would be appreciated, and added to my slowly growing list. Thanks, First Light (talk) 05:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)