Jump to content

User talk:Invertzoo/Archive 81

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 75←Archive 79Archive 80Archive 81Archive 82Archive 83→Archive 85


ARCHIVE PAGE 81: September 2014


Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lenox Hill Neighborhood House, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Attorney and ESOL. 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) 09:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Diverticulae

Hi, Invertzoo! It looks like you made several edits to the article Diverticula (mollusc) without realizing that "diverticula" is just the Latin plural form of diverticulum, which already has an article. For an example of a scientific article using the right form of the word in the plural ("...diverticula are..."), you may view this. I have gone ahead and nominated Diverticula (mollusc) for deletion, but please comment and correct me if you believe I am in error. Thanks! KDS4444Talk 14:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi KDS. I did do Latin at school. The information that is in the mollusc article should not simply be deleted. In theory yes, the information could be merged into the article on Diverticulum. However, as usual, the diverticulum article deals with human anatomy, medicine, therefore fitting in a chunk about molluscan (nudibranch) anatomy is a little tricky. If a merge happens, the intro for the main article will have to be carefully re-written, and the mollusk info will no doubt be relegated to a small section at the bottom of the article. This anthropocentric-dominated approach is a re-occuring problem in Wikipedia. Take courtship for example, and many other terms. Of course there is a human version, and that has taken priority in our coverage up to now, but courtship also occurs in snails and slugs, as well as in many other animals, spiders, etc. Should all these topics be combined into one article or separated? I think this is a question that needs careful thought and analysis of the function and use of the encyclopedia. Again, I personally would be tempted to use a disambiguation page to lead a reader to separate articles, rather than combining everything into one rag-bag article. I suppose in my philosophical approach to structuring Wikipedia I am an eventualist rather than an immediatist, and you have the opposite belief. Of course the disambiguation page could instead be an introductory article for the concept that would lead readers into whichever aspect of the concept they were interested in. Invertzoo (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you completely on the anthropocentric nature of Wikipedia articles, and consider it a travesty myself. Let us both agree on that! And I do not wish to lose the information in the article on molluscan diverticula, but I also hope we agree that this doesn't mean we should to have an article with an incorrect Latin word in its title, yes? I think that what I would like to see is to have the diverticulum article de-human-centered and made more generalized so that it theoretically includes molluscan diverticula as well. Does that not sound reasonable? Does it not sound better than reiterating an error in neuter noun declension? Or, if a separate article on molluscan diverticula seems better, I would also support that. Do you agree that having an article called "Diverticula (mollusc)" as a way of separating the diverticula of molluscs from those of humans is maybe not a good idea? Do we agree on that? KDS4444Talk 14:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Well actually right now I don't really agree that this article should be a subsection of the Diverticulum article, at least as that article currently stands. It is true that on Wikipedia an article title is supposed to be in the singular, not the plural. We can easily change that and make Diverticula (mollusc) into a redirect. However in RS, I should explain that these organs in nudibranchs are always referred to as diverticula (OK, it's plural, but apart from that it is entirely correct as per zoological usage).
If the Diverticulum article does in fact get re-worked to include every kind of diverticulum in every kind of organism, then of course there could be a section on nudibranchs (no other mollusks have these diverticula in the cerata... P.S. Cerata is also a plural title. ... Cerata are unique to certain families of nudibranchs, so because these diverticula are unique to nudibranchs, maybe the title of the article should reflect that.
We should get the WikiProject Medicine people to weigh in on this, because they are used to dominating the articles for any term that occurs in medicine/ human anatomy. I don't know how they would feel about "their" articles being hi-jacked by zoologists such that the meaning in a medicine context becomes just one of many.
I also need to explain that it is currently very hard for me to concentrate on and work on something like this, because during the last few days I am having a real problem with using Wikipedia, in that every time I go back to it, or open a new page, I have to log in again and change my password, numerous times a day. It's extremely inconvenient and time-consuming. I have to sort that out. Do you have any idea what might be causing that? Currently I am using another browser to see if that fixes the problem, but it seems maybe not. So if I don't get back to you for a while, that is why. Invertzoo (talk) 15:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Wow-- the problem you are having with logging in to Wikipedia is one I have never heard of before and it sounds VERY annoying. Off-hand I can't think of what might be causing such a problem without being able to see the actual messages you are being faced with (I wonder: are you being told that your account has been "hijacked" and therefore you need to change your password? Or is it something else?). I don't claim to be a wizard of security protocols, but surely there are people here who are and who can help you. Best of luck on that!
In other news: I am going to go ahead and make some changes to the diverticulum article so that it reflects general biology, not just human biology, and I will leave a note on the talk page bringing up the points you mentioned regarding anthropocentrism and zoology and see if I get any response. Since the subject matter is a bit of a backwater (look! I almost made a pun!), I doubt anyone will object to the edits (this time, on this subject).
So you studied Latin in school-- I don't mean to get breezy here, but have you ever read any Catullus? --KDS4444Talk 11:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
One more thing: I see you voted Keep on my nomination of Diverticula (mollusc) for deletion... Am wondering if that is what you really mean there, as I thought you agreed that having a plural form of a noun for an article title wasn't exactly MOS... Am I wrong on that? KDS4444Talk 12:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I mean "keep" as opposed to "delete". If the article title does in fact need a title "move", that is extremely trivial, you, I, or anyone else can do a "move" without in any way involving an AFD. And a merge also can be carried out without an AFD. Nominating an Article for Deletion implies that the article, and its contained info, are not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. That is obviously not the case here, so an AfD was actually an overreaction and an inappropriate course of action. And let me also point out that there are exceptions in the guideline for singular titles for articles. This set of organs is nearly always referred to in the plural, not the singular, and one could, if pressed, make a case for keeping it as a plural title, something along the lines that it would "improve the encyclopedia" as follows: there are plenty of amateurs who enjoy photographing seaslugs underwater. Most of these amateurs did not study Latin but would like to learn more about nudibranchs. If they search for "Diverticula", that is what they will expect to find. They will not know that the singular form is "diverticulum". Anyway... I have not yet read your changes to the anatomical article yet and I will go ahead and do that. At school in England we mostly studied "Caesar's Gallic Wars"; I think we only read one poem by Catullus. Invertzoo (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2014

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ousdale Broch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Periwinkle. 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) 09:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Pectinidae

Thanks for your invitation to look at a merge discussion for Pectinidae. I've acknowledged the invite there and will add more soon.
Mathglot (talk) 07:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

You are very welcome Mathglot. This kind of thing is certainly a general issue that is frequently encountered; whether we can find a consensus about it is another matter! Invertzoo (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2014

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cratena peregrina, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hydroid. 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) 09:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 September 2014

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.

Ovulinae
added a link pointing to Extant
Theora mesopotamica
added a link pointing to Saltwater

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 September 2014

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Invertzoo/Archive_81&oldid=1141523990"