User talk:Geometry guy/Archive 15

FA-Team successes!

Indigenous people of the Everglades region, Draining and development of the Everglades and Restoration of the Everglades have all recently become FAs! King Arthur is now at FAC! Thanks to our hard-working team members! Awadewit (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		Thanks for helping to make King Arthur one of the best articles on Wikipedia by providing a helpful peer review! These are essential for the improvement of articles during FA-Team missions! Awadewit (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't really deserve this: I only reviewed the lead (although I did read the whole article in the end). But I'm not a medal collector, so this will eventually get filed away in my talk archives. Let me add, however, many thanks for taking the trouble to recognise editors who have made an effort to contribute to article improvement. That is really important to Wikipedia's mission. Geometry guy 22:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

see Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates

Hey G-guy,

OK, so I'm a heathen Luddite. :-) See the minor brouhaha at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates in the thread regarding "Primary contributor clause" and "how to define a significant contributor." There's lotsa talk of tools tools tools. Tools are cool, but common sense is cooler. Tools that increase the workload by making FAC shoulder the obligation to determine the "significant contributor(s)" for each and every nom are fool's gold tools. I have suggested a simple, readily verifiable course involving a certain minimum amount of public notification for FAC noms, followed by a minimum waiting period. I'm hoping you'll join with me in persuading others to resist the urge to tool the situation up. :-) Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 12:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No suggestions needed, since there is no issue and never has been. Tools are nice, but edit count is not used as Awadewit seems to think it is, and isn't likely to ever be used that way, so while any new tools that might be developed for general purposes may be helpful for Wiki in general, they won't be directly relevant to any FAC decisions anyway. I haven't read the FAC page yet, but I won't support minimum waiting periods, btw Ling. Some of us know a significant contributor when we see one (and actually do follow some of these articles and do our homework :-), and Jbmurray and Qp10qp definitely made hefty contributions to King Arthur; that Awadewit deprecates their work as mere copyeditors is surprising. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a storm in a teacup to me, although possibly the kind of storm that can freeze hydraulic fluid in helicopters. I don't intend to add to the discussion. Sandy made a perfectly understandable mistake, and others have, erm, overreacted just a touch, prompting the usual sorts of miscommunication and misunderstanding that happen in such a situation. This is precisely the wrong time to be considering a fix to address the perceived issue.

The determination of significant contributors requires judgement, and even though I'm a fan of tools, bots, etc., I firmly believe that matters of judgement on Wikipedia should be left unequivocally to human editors, not statistics or algorithms. All human judgement is fallible, but as long as it is transparent, accountable and reparable, that doesn't matter. I have no objection to the development of tools which might provide useful information to inform human judgement, but the bottom line is that humans decide. I have complete confidence in Sandy's ability to make these judgements. Geometry guy 21:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm ... I don't know of any mistake I made (unless we count taking the word of a member of the FA-team), but whatever; I appreciate the general gist of your post. Once this nom closes, we need to discuss the more serious issues with these FAT and similar Project noms, some of which have been tangentially touched on at WT:FAC, although no one has yet hit on the more serious issues from my chair. Need to save that discussion until the nom closes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The Hustler GAR

Thank you, both for your recommendation and for your cool head. I honestly am befuddled at some of the reactions this process has engendered and I appreciate your stepping in to referee. Otto4711 (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• May the GAR be closed and the article listed? It's been close to a week with no further comment. Thanks. Otto4711 (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Meher Baba first contacts with west needs work

What was a pretty simple section got somewhat bloatified. Jossi found newspaper and magazine articles about these visits, and I made an effort to include each and every one. In fact the section would be cleaner without them, but then it's back to Lord Meher and Purdom as essentially the only refs. I'm open to suggestions.--Nemonoman (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The red light was lit by the repeated use of the phrase "The article...". My guess is that this is one of the examples where you believe the article has been made uglier; if so I would agree. I've no problem with using the articles as sources, but if you can trim the section to make it cleaner, while keeping the extra sources, that would certainly work for me! Geometry guy 21:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You're doing a good job editing, and I think a less-involved party might have a better time. So if you're up to it, have a go. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I might try, but maybe not tonight. The basic issue is that a source should not be discussed in the article unless the source itself is notable. The information I need to edit this section myself is whether the quotations attributed to Meher Baba by these articles are contested. If they are not contested, then the articles do not need to be discussed with every quotation: a citation will suffice. Geometry guy 21:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It's the balancing act -- so few 'objective sources' -- but when we have them, the info is pablum. The quotes themselves are not notable in any way except that they appear outside the Baba devotee-lit, and much if not all of the bloat could be reduced by eliminating. I will do this if you think it needed. --Nemonoman (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I take it back. The articles cited describe several statements that are directly contradictory to devotee lit. Like the AP quotes about miracles. Here's Baba: "I receive letters from the East and West, and other parts of the world that I have performed this miracle and that miracle. But I have declared before, and told the Gujarati and Telugu groups also, that since the time I have come among you, I have not performed a single miracle. And when I break my silence, it will be my first and last miracle.".

Similarly Time with the Messiah bit: Devotee Lit describes Baba pushing this title away until 1954. Similarly the "sin" of America. There are simply no references in devo-lit to sin. Sin just isn't part of MB's vocabulary.

So...--Nemonoman (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this looks like a case where the article quotes need to be balanced by references to the devotee literature, with the article itself taking no sides. Is that do-able? Geometry guy 22:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I really am stumped. Particularly as one would (in effect) need to prove a negative. You've already mentioned that the continuity etc of this section is rough. Won't your suggestion make it even rougher?? --Nemonoman (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it a shot tomorrow, time permitting. For now, enough. :-) All the best, Geometry guy 23:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

tip of my tongue...

erm, is there a neat/concise term for "the relation is either equal, a > b, or a < b".. in the sense that perhaps 10% of the set is of the first sort (equal), 60% is of the second and so on... I was thinking equivalence relation, but I was wrong... thanks! Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 02:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you've got yourself a (strict) total order. Geometry guy 06:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Anything I can do...

To help get Scattered disc up to FA, I'll do, but I have to warn you that I'm going to be on semi-wikibreak for a while, since I'm working on a real world article. Serendi^podous 08:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

FA-Team - Scattered disc

Hi there, Geometry guy. You said you were going to help me and Serendi get this article up to featured status. I don't want to be hasty or intruding, but are you going to help soon? We could really use some help getting references to support the new information being added to the articles. I was working on an article that I really didn't want to go to FAC yet, that just failed [yay!]. So, I'm going to finish this one off and move on. Thanks --Meldshal (talk to me) 15:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

HI, I believe I saw something about G-guy being away from his computer for a few days... not sure... Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR)

That's right, but I'm back, and Wikipedia appears to have survived without me :-)

I can't (in general) help with references (although I may be able to help with a few specific examples). However, I do intend to start an FA-Team mission to support this article and encourage a cross-over of expertise with Solar energy. There seems to be enough interest to make such a mission work. Geometry guy 22:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is also closely related to Detached object (astronomy), which is currently a WP:GAN... Every time is see GAN I sound it our like the English word "Gone", which is in turn is the Chinese word for f*ck, if you say it with the fourth (falling) tone. Just say it as if you were angry; a Chinese person will be shocked ;-) This potentially dangerous cultural moment brought to you by Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 04:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

A question

It seems to me that there's an over-reluctance to close GARs, even though the eventual outcome must be obvious to a blind pirate. I took it upon myself to close Ramesses II earlier today, and there are quite a few other GARs I'd like to put out of their misery.

Is there something about GAR that I'm not understanding? Was I wrong to close Ramesses II's GAR? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

There are several issues here. One is that participation at GAR is low right now: we really need reviewers' comments to close GARs. Another is that article editors need fair treatment and good feedback. You were completely right to close Ramesses II, and there are other GARs that could be closed right now. I've been away for a few days, but would have closed e.g. the popular studies GAR by now. There are guidelines on the reassessment page for closing discussions. I intend to close a couple tomorrow unless you beat me to it. Geometry guy 22:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I've read the guidelines, but they are just that, guidelines. Seems to me that reviewers are too often reluctant to make the decision; thumbs up, or thumbs down. If I'm not beaten to it, I'll be closing a few others tomorrow, 'cos I ain't reluctant at all. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

MIT

I've made some substantial edits to MIT in response to your feedback, especially with regards to the lede and history. Would you mind giving it a once over to see if it's heading in the right direction? Madcoverboy (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you again for the invaluable feedback. Madcoverboy (talk) 22:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I wish I had some time to make a few more edits myself, rather than just presenting a wishlist for a better article. Geometry guy 22:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I made another pass through and was Johnny Appleseed with the criticism and threw in some more content to fill out the themes in the lead. Let us... sigh, me know what you think. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Tweak to Peer Review script (AZPR)

Hi G guy, the MOS has changed so the AZPR script needs to be changed too (full dates no longer need to be linked). I tried to do this myself and failed. Please see Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Autoformat if you are able to help with this - I have left a note for ANdyZ, but he is not active any more. Thanks in advance for any help, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Coals to Newcastle ;)

Hey G-guy,

I'm back from my sister's wedding, which went really well. You probably won't be surprised to hear that I didn't wear those shoes, but rather bought new ones. :) Since the wedding was held outdoors next to a pond, I was worried the ground might be soft, so I got cute and comfortable wedges, beige on bottom with a simple but not boring black leather top that covered most of my toes. My sister didn't make us wear all the same shoes, just all the same dresses. ;)

You might remember a certain article that we worked on intensely, the one with beer and stars and squiggly molecules? Well, an actual professor has reviewed it and thought very highly of it, which Awadewit relayed to us indirectly through another professor. Th latter also said that I was "fortunate in my friends", and I couldn't agree more. :) Willow (talk) 11:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back - you have been missed! Anyway, I'm glad it all went well, and that your sister gave you the opportunity for a bit of creative individuality in your outfit! Not to mention some shoe shopping... :-)

It is very important that our technical articles are well regarded by academia, so your news is cheering. Of course, we need to make them as accessible as we can, but they also need to be correct! An equipartition between readability and accuracy perhaps, with the same energy devoted to each mode of writing...

Concerning friends, I would say that fortune favours the brave. Bon courage in your renewed wiki-endeavours: I look forward to supporting them where I can. Geometry guy 16:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

FA-Team

I was wondering if you were interested in being the coordinator for either of the sciencey projects that have asked for the FA-Team's help? I'm a bit coordinated out right now and am not as equipped to handle those articles. You expressed an interest in working on those articles, so I thought I would ask you! :) Awadewit (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd been intending to do that. I hope to launch a suitable mission this weekend. Geometry guy 16:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

FA-Team Mission 5: Solar solicitude/solidarity

Hi Geometry guy,

As an FA-Team member, I'm soliciting your (my) help with FA-Team Mission 5 on Scattered disc and Solar energy (and possibly others). I see you've already signed up as coordinator for the mission: that's a good start, thanks! Geometry guy 15:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'm down with Solar Energy. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a whack at solar energy, and might help out at scattered disc as well if I have time. (Mainly because solar energy has a peer review to work from, and I'm rather lazy) Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist on Scattered Disc. I've been bogged down on the RFA Review and other things, so haven't been able to help as much as I would like. But count me in! Thanks again, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review params for topic-specific PRs

Would it be possible to create params that, when used, would instruct the PR bot to cross transclude a PR page both at Wikipedia:Peer review and at a topic specific page such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Peer review? I asked b/c most of those subtopic pages could be used more than they are and I'd like to specifically encourage use of the Chemistry PR page for assessment purposes. --mav (talk) 15:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It probably is, but I'm reluctant to do so as complicating the templates causes each peer review to occupy more space at WP:Peer review, where space is tight. The bot works by converting the contents of a category into a list. For example Category:Natural_sciences_and_mathematics_peer_reviews produces the list User:VeblenBot/C/Natural_sciences_and_mathematics_peer_reviews. You could transclude this VeblenBot page onto WP:WikiProject Chemistry/Peer review and the result would be to list the articles there. Sorry not to be of more help. Geometry guy 19:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You mean that I could reverse engineer this thing to work on Chemistry PRs the same way as normal PRs? I'll take a look but I assumed that the code would be way over my head. But if that can work, then it might be better anyway since we don't always want each chem PR to also be a regular PR. Thanks! --mav (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I was just saying that the code {{User:VeblenBot/C/Natural_sciences_and_mathematics_peer_reviews}} will produce

• 05/10/2016, 01:49:31: Crater Illusion
  

• 03/10/2016, 21:37:39: Cloud
  

• 02/09/2016, 13:11:58: Jean-Pascal van Ypersele
  

• 25/06/2016, 04:53:37: Thorium
  

• 03/01/2017, 15:07:00: Mammal
  

If you want Chemistry PRs to work like general PRs, you will need to put them in a category and ask Carl (CBM) to get VeblenBot to list that category. If he agrees, I can help out with the templates: see {{CF}} for further info. Geometry guy 20:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Given the small number of natsci PRs, I think I'll recommend getting rid of the Chemistry PR page and simply categorizing our PRs as natsci under the current PR framework instead. I know that will mean more PRs, but at least we will categorize them. :) Thanks. --mav (talk) 21:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: FA-Team Mission 5: Solar solicitude/solidarity

(copied over from my talk page:) I'm a little wary of sciency articles, I'm afraid. But I am busy learning a lot about Planets beyond Neptune, so you never know... (Let's not talk about fines, on the other hand.) Hope all's well with you, by the way. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, once you're trans-Neptunian you're pretty much all over the place :-) Thanks for the good wishes: I'm fine and hope all is well with you too. I look forward to working closely with you on something again, but hey, it's gonna happen at some point, and there's no rush! Geometry guy 19:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Art History

[1] AH uses full links rather than parameters to avoid redlinks. That's defeated by magic words in the links. Gimmetrow 15:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't intentional, but a glitch (missing subst's) in the template used to generate the entry. I've fixed the template now. Geometry guy 19:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Need help

Hi Geometry guy, Although we've never met, I'm faced with a difficult problem that I think perhaps a mathematician can help with. It concerns the old and sticky controversy involving Wikipedia's naming guidelines for zoological articles.

Like many others, I believe that our current guidelines, which prefer common names to be used for the titles of zoological articles, make it very difficult to organize these articles. We believe that the obvious and only logical solution is to adopt the naming system that zoologists have used for some 250 years: a very successful one called binomial nomenclature (Linnaean taxonomy). As opposed to common names, these names are hierarchical and guaranteed to be unique by an official regulating body, the ICZN. As a matter of fact, the WP:BOTONY switched to using this method in 2006 when they felt this common name policy was leading them to a situation that was becoming too complex to work with. I believe that many people, such as myself, attempting to organize hundreds of zoological articles are now faced with the same problems: the larger our collection of zoological articles becomes, the more badly organized it becomes. My fear is that before long, we'll be left with a huge, incoherent mess of articles with lots of duplication and inconsistencies that will be very difficult to fix -- exactly what the folks at WP:BOTONY were afraid of.

Myself and others have attempted to point this out on numerous occasions, but to no avail: the supporters of the status quo maintain that common name article titles are just too important for reader accessibility and that we editors must therefore simply learn how to cope with the organizational burden. Of course, none of them have any idea of what we're up against. I know they mean well, but they are not helping the situation. We need a way forward. I was hoping that somebody at WP:Mathematics might be able help by using numbers to demonstrate what WP:BOTONY argued, by never had to prove. Your name came up a lot in the page history and you seem to be an active editor, so that's how I ended up on your talk page. It may take some more explaining on my part, but I'm okay with that. If you don't think you're up to the task or have the time, that's okay too, but then I would be very grateful if you could point me in the direction of someone who is more likely to be able to help. (PS -- Please answer here, as I've temporarily added your talk page to my watchlist). --Jwinius (talk) 14:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response: your message was rather thought provoking, and it is not clear to me how best to answer. On the one hand I understand and appreciate the support for the current approach of using common names where possible. On the other hand I appreciate the issues you raise with this practice, and WP:Naming conventions (flora) seems to me to be a good approach for plants. I also think that the reader accessibility issue with scientific names is exaggerated, given that there will surely always be a redirect from common names. So I am sympathetic to your case for moving e.g. WP:Naming conventions (fauna) further in the direction taken by WP:Naming conventions (flora). However, I have some questions and reservations.

• How far in that direction is appropriate? Should lion be a redirect to panthera leo? I suspect your issue is with articles such as Wilson's storm-petrel which perhaps should be moved to Oceanites oceanicus. It may be better to argue for movement in naming conventions rather than radical change.
• It is a bad idea to place the default naming convention on a WikiProject page. I would encourage naming conventions to be placed on their own Wikipedia pages, as with the flora and fauna examples. Actually for most other kingdoms, the case for using scientific names by default is probably much stronger: the animal kingdom is the main case where common names are particularly familiar and widespread.
• I'm not sure how I can help as a mathematician. Okay I have a fairly logical mindset and am not afraid of numbers, even though I don't use them very much in my work. I'm not a statistician and have no expertise in acquiring, processing and presenting numerical data. However, the question you raise is largely a matter for developing and perhaps shifting consensus. My experience as a Wikipedian may be more useful!

I hope this helps in some way. Feel free to follow up. I also suggest talking to WillowW who is a widely admired Wikipedian and has contributed a great deal to taxonomic articles on Wikipedia. Geometry guy 19:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. In my mind, all the way is the only way with no exceptions, even in cases like Panthera leo. If the fear is that readers will find that hard to digest, I suggest that we simply look for a more effective way of displaying the common name(s). I work on snakes and my solution has been a slightly different format, e.g. Vipera berus, but I'm sure something much more effective can be achieved if a more concerted effort is made, e.g. Cichorium intybus foliosum. There are so many reasons that I can think of not to use common names for article titles, but I suppose the most important ones still have to do with the need for proper organization. I'll be sure to contact WillowW to see what her thoughts on this subject might be, but would you happen to know if any good statisticians hang out around here? I still like the idea of using numbers to help prove this point. --Jwinius (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The only one that springs to mind is User:Michael Hardy. Geometry guy 22:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I can give you my thoughts right away, to save you the trouble of repeating yourself on my Talk page. :) Willow (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that would be nice! So, do you think I'm nuts, or just misguided? ;-) --Jwinius (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, neither as yet. ;) But you may soon think that I'm either nuts or misguided. ;)

First, let me say that I'm not an expert, either on taxonomy or on Wikipedia's treatment of it. It is true, as G-guy says, that I've made quite a few taxonomic articles, especially in the Archaea, Rhodobacterales and the green algae. But it was really a rather random enthusiasm, and I wasn't doing it with anyone or with any WikiProject. I also haven't read the policy pages very carefully. So, you need to know that I don't pretend to be an expert, but I will try to be as helpful to you as I can be.

First, the choice of the major name, the one that goes on the main article, seems unimportant at first glance, since you can always have a redirect page. For example, Panthera leo can just redirect to lion, as it does now. What's important for readers is that the redirect exists, so that they find the information they're looking for, right?

All of my taxonomic articles, such as Acetabularia, used the official Latin name, which I favour for any taxon that is likely to be unfamiliar to most readers. As you say, it's more precise, more verifiable and less likely to change with time or to be the subject of disputes.

However, for familiar animals, animals that everyone learns as children, I oppose the use of Latin. I think that most readers are not familiar with the binomial system, and I think that seeing an unfamiliar name on a familiar animal would introduce unnecessary uncertainty and even annoyance in our readers. Forgive me, but I can easily imagine (and I bet you can, too) that some people — perhaps even a majority of North American readers — would find Panthera leo instead of lion to be eye-rollingly pretentious. ;) Speaking for myself, I don't think we need to be scrupulously consistent on naming of the main article, as long as all the appropriate redirects are in place. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, don't you agree? I for one am willing to sacrifice consistency for a more pleasant reader experience; non nobis solum, we don't write for ourselves.

In summary, I recommend naming familiar animals like "snake" or rattle snake by their most common English name with redirects for the Latin name and English synonyms. By contrast, a little-known but well-defined species of snake should go by its binomial Latin name with its various English names as redirects.

Sorry for going on too long about that; does that seem reasonable to you? Trying to be helpful, Willow (talk) 00:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It sounds reasonable, but it's not what I'm after. Basically, I don't see why we can't have our cake and eat it. My examples of Vipera berus and especially Cichorium intybus foliosum are not perfect, but they do hint at what I think is possible. As you and most other common name proponents see it, the name of the article should be, for example, "Cougar" instead of "Puma concolor" because that's what the title of the article should be (easy reading). But my question is, why can't the name of the article be "Puma concolor" and the title be "Cougar" (or even "Cougar, Puma")? That way, the article can be inextricably linked to the name "Puma concolor"; not just weakly linked with a redirect the same way "Puma" is. This will make it much easier to organize our articles and ensure they remain accessible to our readers. All we need to achieve this is to modify or expanded the wiki code a bit. I'm sure WP:BOTONY would also be happy to use such an option. --Jwinius (talk) 14:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with Willow on this. Concerning the article title/name distinction, what you want can be achieved by modifying MediaWiki:Common.js. Indeed this already contains the code needed to change the way the title displays for use with {{wrongtitle}} and related templates: this is more or less the en-wiki equivalent of example you give on fr. However, at the moment, the code only substitutes for the displayed title if a copy and paste of the real title will produce a link to the given page. From what I can see the consensus supports this restriction. Geometry guy 18:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

What I had in mind is a little different from the French example above. I was thinking about using the title bar a little differently to make the common name(s) more prominent. For example, if an article named Puma concolor were to include markup language that looked something like this:

<title>cougar</title>

... then the title of the article would change to Cougar, while aligned to the far right and in a smaller font size (and perhaps under the dividing line), you would see the actual name of the article: Puma concolor. Start editing the article and the title would display Editing Puma concolor. Take away the title statement and Puma concolor would once again become the article's title with nothing printed to the right. With this approach both the zoologists and the average reader would be happy. How could this not be seen as a win-win solution? --Jwinius (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to puncture your enthusiasm, but even simple changes to the MediaWiki software (via bugzilla) can take years. If the change doesn't have clear consensus, it won't happen. Geometry guy 22:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least I learned some things. Thanks anyway! Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude here. The main feature you need (to change the bold text above the article) is already in MediaWiki, as the DISPLAYTITLE magic word. It would be possible to make a template somewhat like {{wrongtitle}} that would take the common name and latin name as parameters and would display them appropriately. At least it wouldn't take any software changes. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Let's take this over to your talk page. --Jwinius (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review Request

Hey Geometry guy, I currently have the article The Great American Bash (2005) up for Peer review, here. I come to you in hopes of you reviewing the article, as I'm aiming to get this article prepared for Featured Article status. I would really appreciate if you would take some time and review this article to the best of your abilities. Cheers, -- iMatthew _T.C. 13:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you by chance read over this message? -- iMatthew _T.C. 21:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I did, but you asked so many editors, and received so many reviewers' comments, that I didn't feel it would be a good use of my limited wiki-time to contribute. Thanks for your understanding, Geometry guy 21:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

New FA-Team mission needs your help!

Félix Houphouët-Boigny needs to be copyedited and peer reviewed. We would appreciate any and all help from the crack members of the FA-Team! Sign up here. Merci! Awadewit (talk) 12:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Spinout, link and title, and odd titles?

Hi,

I'm trying to use the Spinout template to transclude the lede of King's Men personnel into a summary section on King's Men (playing company) and am having a spot of trouble with the spinout/link and spinout/title functions. In short, the don't seem to work; the …/title text isn't bolded in the main article, and the …/link ends up bolded as a self-link in the summary section. I'm wondering whether this could be a bug tickled by the articles' names containing an apostrophe? I've compared my own changes with the syntax used on, e.g., Pathology and can't seem to spot any obvious mistakes on my part. Help? --Xover (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It was the apostrophe (due to a Wikipedia behaviour which I've not yet understood fully). I've added a hack to the templates which should make them more robust. Note that I neither support nor discourage this approach for spinout articles, but am simply providing technical support. Geometry guy 22:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; much appreciated! --Xover (talk) 22:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Solar energy

Fun times eh? I've been wading through this gibberish for about a year now. What do you think needs to happen to make it stop? Mrshaba (talk) 01:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I recommend going back to basics: verifiability from reliable sources, no original research, and neutral point of view. I think that the the root of the problem is the need for a comparison between solar and nuclear in the article. That is going to be tough to do maintaining neutrality, so get those reliable sources handy and start finding material which reflects all points of view (APOV ;). See also my comment on the talk page about the comparison with global energy use. Please email me for further thoughts. Geometry guy 21:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

GA discussion solution

What do you think of my new solution.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Closing GARs?

Hi,

EpicAdam said you are the fellow to close a GAR? If so, how can we wrap up Wikipedia:GAR#Horses_in_warfare? Thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 02:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, it's been handled by epicAdam. Sorry to bug you. Montanabw^(talk) 02:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review

This discussion may be interesting for you. Ruslik (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've been watching with interest. Geometry guy 18:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

differential form

Hi,

As per your edit of 22 march '07 please see my comment at the talk page of the article. Katzmik (talk) 07:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The article, especially the lead, needs TLC. If you want to fix it, go for it. I think everyone will be happy if you do. Geometry guy 20:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Communication

A link checker at Peer review would be useful, but I think you've realised that the autogeneration of the page affects how that will work. Could you clarify for me the implementation? Thanks, Geometry guy 20:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I assume your talking about the edit to {{PR/header}}, the program uses re.compile(r'<b><a href="[^"]*?/wiki/([^"]*)" title="[^"]*">', flags) to get the list of articles from the HTML. This was the only effective way of doing it on WP:TFA/R and HTML is the only general purpose way of articles out pages like WP:FAC. If you think their's a better way of implementing this or if it causes trouble from some other scripts let me know. — Dispenser 21:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Solar energy

I'm curious why you see the need to duplicate the "this is not a forum" notice. Obviously if someone is going to ignore one notice they are going to ignore twenty or even thirty notices... 199.125.109.62 (talk) 21:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Who's asking? I'm curious as to whether you operate any registered user accounts. Geometry guy 09:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. Anyone can edit. Please answer the question. 199.125.109.64 (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

My first GA ev-er! :D

Not tea for two exactly, but... ;)

Hey G-guy,

I'm not sure if you noticed, but the problem of Apollonius is now a Good Article! :) I've never actually gotten a GA before, and I wanted to share my happiness with you. Happiness and a glass of champagne, too; even leagues apart, good friends can yet be connected by bubbles, don't you think? :) It's too bad that Cronholm isn't with us; I miss him more every day, it seems. :(

I also wanted to thank you for inspiring me to work on the p. of A., and on geometry articles whatsoever. It's fun for me, and I think it somehow comes naturally to me, which is a little odd; maybe it comes from spending so much time knitting? I think I'll maybe work next on making Soddy's hexlet nice, and then maybe a few related articles such as the Steiner chain, Pappus chain, radical axis, and so on.

Hoping you're doing well, Willow (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! And well deserved: I don't see this one coming to GAR any time soon :-) This makes me wonder if you might get more pleasure from bringing 5 articles to GA than one to FA: it seems to fit your style better, but what do I know? Review quality varies a lot at GA, however, which can be frustrating. The main reason I support GA, for all its flaws, is that I think it is more important that many of Wikipedia's articles are decent than a few of them are stellar.

My mood today is probably best summarized by the fact that I'm listening to Alanis "no clue what the word ironic means" Morisette, so logging in to get this message was a much needed (gin and) tonic :-) How is it that you always find great images? I don't quite understand how I've been an inspiration, unless "inspiration"="friendly nuisance" (hmmm, maybe it is so), but thank you anyway!

I miss Cronholm too, but it's kind of parental isn't it? I mean if you spend your first year of college editing Wikipedia, that's not a good sign! So, in a way, I'm glad he's not around here much. I should email him sometime. Working with him on maths assessments was a lot of fun.

I've been interested in tinkering around Soddy's hexlet, Dupin cyclide, Lie sphere geometry (obviously), Power of a point, and have noticed Newton's theorem of revolving orbits (bon courage), but I haven't yet looked at the chain/axis articles. Geometry guy 20:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It's so good to hear from you again; thanks for your letters! I like Alanis, too, or at least some songs of hers like "Unsent" and "UR". Now that I've broken the curse, I might actually follow your advice about doing more GA's after these two; maybe X-ray crystallography, Sundial, Usher syndrome, Universe and (gasp!) Knitting? I don't know why it's so hard to write about my favourite topic; I wrote a bunch of articles at the beginning of my time here but now it's like I have too much to say and my pen gets clogged with words. :P Aside from being too oceanic a topic, I also think maybe people here might not care for it as much as the technical ones? But that's probably silly of me. Willow (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

PS. Oh, I think I might've figured out how to make a cyclide? It's like moving a circle of varying radius r so that it's tangent to the equator of an inner sphere of radius R; the distance d to the center is given by the elliptical equation posted at Steiner chain and its radius equals d - R. Now if I can only persuade Blender to make the image! :) Willow (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I tried out Blender and am impressed that you can persuade it to do anything! Concerning articles, it's funny that you find Knitting more dauntingly vast than Universe! :-) There are surely a lot of people interested in each - maybe not the same people though. Universe is close to GA standard now; it is greatly improved since the GAR (which I revisited with a smile). Maybe the lead needs a trim, and it might not be up-to-date on the ultimate fate (consensus has pretty much converged on accelerating expansion I believe), but I don't see any other issues at a glance. Geometry guy 13:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

References to one of your contribution to the article "contact geometry"

On the Article "Contact geometry" you wrote:

Let M be the projectivization of the cotangent bundle of N: thus M is fiber bundle over a M whose fiber at a point x is the space of lines in T*N, or, equivalently, the space of hyperplanes in TN. The 1-form λ does not descend to a genuine 1-form on M. However, it is homogeneous of degree 1, and so it defines a 1-form with values in the line bundle O(1), which is the dual of the fibrewise tautological line bundle of M. The kernel of this 1-form defines a contact distribution. There are several ways of making this construction more explicit by making choices.

This sounds very interesting, and I want to go a little deeper into that stuff. That's why I need some references, to answer some possibly basic questions like:

In which way is the space of hyperplanes in TN isomorphic to the space of Lines in T*N? What is the fibrewise tautological line bundle of M? Why defines a 1 Form, homogeneous of degree 1, a 1-form with values in the line bundle O(1)?

Maybe you can give some references to answer this questions, course I would like to read somethig more about all that.

Mirco.Richter (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I should add references to the article, but instead I will explain here. The isomorphism between hyperplanes in TN and lines in T*N is pointwise duality: the annihilator of a hyperplane bundle in TN is a line bundle in T*N.

Each fibre of the projectivized tangent bundle is a projective space. Hence it has a tautological line bundle. Gluing these together gives the fibrewise bundle I mentioned. This stuff isn't very deep: it is just a matter of making standard descriptions in terms of contact forms "natural". The article needs some work: my contribution needs to be taken forward; it isn't particularly clear or complete. Geometry guy 18:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

But implicit you stated some Theorems like "The 1-form λ does not descend to a genuine 1-form on M" and so there must be any proofs available.. Mirco.Richter (talk) 19:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

FA-Team proposals

Could you possibly encourage all of the FA-Team members to vote here? It generally takes some prompting. I would do it again, but I am leaving in about a week for India and can't keep up with everything on wiki right now - life is crazy. I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 10:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm pondering nomming Guan Yu Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 10:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe not. Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 11:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it a (mail)shot if I have time, but I feel a bit hypocritical sending out FAT spam, as I haven't been very active myself recently, and don't see that changing any time soon. Enjoy India! Geometry guy 20:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

September reminder

Hi G-guy, Wikipedia:Peer review/Automated/September 2008 is now live - could you please take care of the other PR monthly changes? Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Mostly done. This is more of a pain than it needs to be, because it involves many clicks and a lot of cut-and-paste. I've spent the day trying to streamline it with preloads and have improved Wikipedia talk:Peer review/Maintenance accordingly.

I've also fixed another issue: the active archives (current and previous month) almost always break transclusion limits. Previously I've been dealing with this by hand (and not very often or reliably) but I've now coded the CF template so that it lists the current and previous month's peer review archives, and only transcludes the older ones. These are substituted to stabilize them and don't break any limits.

I mention this for two reasons: first, it may be possible to streamline the semi-automated monthly update in the same way; second, it should be both faster and less technical now for someone else to do the monthly update if I am unavailable. Geometry guy 21:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I made all of the SAPR archives for the rest of the year a fewe months ago, so except for updating the Archive box, there is no monthly task to do there. Unless it is a bumper crop day, I can usually do all the new SAPRs in about 10-15 minutes. I do occasionally forget (twice this past month) and there can be a delay of up to 30 hours between a PR request being initiated and the SAPR link appearing in it (worst case), so having it done eventually by a bot would be nice. I did not realize you were in the Southern Hemisphere - how do you keep from falling off the planet ;-) (my four year old self wants to know)? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Did I say I was? Anyway, your dedication to Peer review is much appreciated by many editors. Geometry guy 10:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You are too kind - sorry to have missed your reply until now. As for the heimsphere, you never said explicitly. I just assumed so from this edit summary. Not trying to pry - I think that live near the West Pole myself ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm just doing my bit to counter systemic bias :-) My actual location is a closely guarded secret, but I like to tease :-) Geometry guy 17:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Understood, say hi to anyone else at your "undisclosed location" ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ha! At least it is a known unknown (although it is probably not too hard to figure it out). Geometry guy 17:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

D.S. (song)

Hi, this recent nomination of mine failed it's GA review. The reason it failed seems to be out of my control. The song lacks any critical analysis or commentary as it's only known for one thing. I nominated the article for deletion because I felt it lacked notability, then I withdrew the RfD nomination and helped another editor improve it. Anyway I decided to try and get it to GA knowing it would be difficult. I can't see the article expanding much further, if at all, all the sources I've found repeat what's already there.

I was wondering where to go next? Since it's not notable for the music but rather the connection, should it even be reviewed as a music article? Any way's, I hope you can thing it over and advise me on where to go next. Personally I think it is a decent article, far more in-depth than any other publication. I'm not asking for an official reassessment or anything, I don't know what to do. — Realist² 13:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I've taken a quick look and think it is a good idea that you asked me, because I know nothing about the album, and only generic gossip about Michael Jackson's personal life and the abuse allegations made against him. So I'm the kind of uninformed reader that a good article needs to inform. Well, it did in the end, but I had to work a bit too much. The word from the review that related to my experience is "disconnected".

The lead did not orient me to the article at all. The jump from the second sentence (on the length of the song) to the third sentence on the abuse allegations left me reeling. The rest of the lead jumps between these two seemingly unrelated things, leaving me none-the-wiser as to why "The song is often cited as a derogatory reference to the District Attorney."

I twigged half way through the theme section, where Dom S. Sheldon sounds like Thomas Sneddon, but I still had to infer for myself that D.S. are the initials of the protagonist rather than, say, a reference to D/s.

So what next? Well, first, GAs do not need to be long, and you have more than enough material here for a GA on this topic. The only thing I would add is a sentence or two of critical reaction to the album as a whole to set the scene (just precis the critical reaction section of HIStory). Second, don't worry about whether it should be reviewed as a music article or not. GAs should be judged as GAs based purely on the criteria. If you get a rejection from a reviewer who says it doesn't meet the Music WikiProject requirement that GAs should have section x, complain! Bring it to GAR if that doesn't work.

So what you really need to do is restructure the article. I recommend working on the body of the article first, bearing in mind that the lead should summarize it. Here are some suggestions.

1. Begin the "Background" with a sentence to the effect that the album and D.S. in particular are widely believed to be influenced by the treatment Jackson received in 1993. (Giving references of course.)
2. Describe this treatment briefly and neutrally. The current section may be a bit too graphic and detailed: stay focused!
3. End the "Background" sentence with something like

   "Jackson then began work on a new album called HIStory, and commenced recording in 1994. The song D.S. included in the album contains lyrics about a cold man called Dom S. Sheldon, which, when sung, sounds similar to Thomas Sneddon" — citing Fox, CNN, and whatever sources you can to support this.

4. Now in the themes section, cut out all the newspaper and television commentary. Cut out also Sneddon's view. Concentrate on the themes and genre.
5. Rename the "Critical reaction" section "Reaction", perhaps with subsections. Precis the critical reaction to HIStory. Then give the reaction to the lyrics by the newspapers, television and Sneddon.
6. After all these changes, think about whether the material in "Other works and aftermath" needs reorganising. (I don't know.)
7. Then go back to the lead and summarize the article in such a way that it introduces the subject to someone like me. The first paragraph should make the connection between D.S. and Sneddon. The rest of the lead can elaborate.

One final thing: the lead has "Jackson and his supporters allege that Sneddon was motivated by his person feelings about the singer." This needs to follow carefully what is elaborated in the article. Such comments about living persons need particularly reliable sources, and usually need a cite in the lead too.

I hope that helps! Cheers, Geometry guy 19:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, I will take note and apply these suggestions soon. Thanx for the detailed response. — Realist² 20:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I've moved your advise to my sandbox, feel free to chop this if you don't want it all in your archive, best. I'll let you know how it goes. — Realist² 21:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'll keep an eye out for ways I can help further. According to WP:FAT, I'm quite good with leads, but this may not be an objective assessment :-) Good luck! Geometry guy 21:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

He he, no matter what happens, I can't believe I nominated it for deletion and am now trying to get it to GA. Still B class on such an odd topic is an achievement. — Realist² 21:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I've done everything suggested and done a few extra bits. What you reckon now? — Realist² 22:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I have been paying attention to this, and I promise I will comment soon. Sorry for the delay. Geometry guy 23:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem, just ping me when you've had a chance. — Realist² 20:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess you don't need me to ping you now, so I just carry on here. It looks much better now. My copyedits are not definitive, so continue to trust your own judgment. I suggest another shot at GA. If you encounter unreasonable demands, let me know. Geometry guy 21:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. I'll give it another go and see what happens. Fingers crossed! — Realist² 21:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Good luck, or as they say more wisely in France, bon courage. Geometry guy 21:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

#titleparts

Hi, It was noted recently at WT:FAC that Wikipedia:Featured articles/Candidate list is currently broken, by which I mean the entries look like

[[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alexandra of Denmark|]] (Edit review)

    [[|Article]] ([[[:Template:Fullurl:]] edit]|[[[:Template:Fullurl:]] history]) • [[Talk:|Article talk]] ([[[:Template:Fullurl:Talk:]] edit]|[[[:Template:Fullurl:Talk:]] history]) • [[[:Template:Fullurl:]] Watch] • Watch review
    Date added: 2 September 2008, 07:44 UTC

I have traced this back to the template {{CF/Content_review/List}}, which you recently edited, with the edit summary You unfixed my fix!. The edit in question changed the parameters of calls to the parser function from #titleparts:{{{page}}}|0|2}} to #titleparts:{{{page}}}|-1|2}}. After spending some time poking around, it seems that the problem may lie with conflicting uses of this template. The 0|2 syntax returns Foo for pages like Featured article candidates/Foo (which is what is used at Wikipedia:Featured articles/Candidate list), while the -1|2 syntax returns Foo for pages like Peer review/Foo/archive1. Was your fix related to the PR use of this template? If so, would #titleparts:{{{page}}}|1|2}} (i.e. +1 not -1) work for both the FAC/FLC list and the PR list? (Of course you'll get problems either way if the article name contains a /, like AC/DC). Thanks, Dr pda (talk) 05:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know anyone used the FAC list (Sandy didn't think it was any use) so I stopped maintaining it. Sorry for the inconvenience this caused you trying to figure out what was wrong.

I switched to the -1|2 syntax (from 1|2) in June in order to handle articles containing a forward slash at PR and GAR: it means start at the second place and continue up to 1 from the end. I've created an alternative version at {{CF/Content_review/List0}} with the 0|2 syntax (start at the second place and continue up to the end) for use with those content review processes, which, like FAC, don't have permanent review pages. I've switched the "featured" CF templates to use this version. They should all work now.

A better fix would be to use permanent review pages at FAC etc., to avoid all of the page moves and link fixing which arises when a second review takes place, but that's another story. Geometry guy 09:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, everything seems fine now. I don't use the list myself, I just happened to come across a mention of the problem, and thought I'd see if it was a quick fix. Thanks for your help. Dr pda (talk) 10:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)