Misplaced Pages

Memory hole

This article is the subject of a Procrustean WP:Deletionist attack. I could use allies. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Stan

I don't think that is a fair assessment. In fact, there are serious issues with the material included there, particularly with the sources, as I've explained before, and with the way they're used. Also, you've reverted Gavia immer pretty aggressively there, so I would be cautious of violating WP:3RR if I were you. I don't think it's a good idea to try to recruit people to revert for you either. I've opened a discussion of the material on the Talk: page, why not discuss it there instead? Jayjg 22:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen, the "references" section you keep duplicating does not contain the references you think it does. It is merely a duplication of the references in the section above. Please, please, please, look at this carefully. I'm not trying to remove anything but an irrelevant duplication of references that are not relevant to the paragraph in question. Again, please don't edit war over this; instead, look very carefully at the material, and realize it is not what you think it is. Please. Please. Just look. Jayjg 22:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, I am fairly certain that they are not identical. The discussion started with an iteration of the references, which were thereafter substantially modified. I put in not only the names of the articles, but the links, the sources, the names of the authors and appropriate wiki links. This is because of your insistence that the New York Times and their columnist aren't authoritative, for example. All of this got overly long, but it was dictated by your (both of you) insistence that no source was good enough. I've been around long enough to know better; this is better documented than the vast majority of Misplaced Pages articles. These are not "blogs".

Hypothetically, if we moved this to one of the articles as you suggested, put in two or three sentences in the Memory Hole article, with citation, with a See Kindle for example could we get past all of this crap?

I suggest that you (and your fellow editor) come up with a draft that you could live with, post it either in the article or in the discussion, and let me take a look at it. I promise I will not run rough shod over you. Somebody has to go first.

I like to contribute to meaningfully articles, and this is a big time waster for all of us. I am making this proposal as an offer of compromise, and in no way by doing so am I conceding any of your points. That being said, I would prefer to rationally work this through. I do understand the need for WP:Consensus.

Nattering at you -- or your nattering rules at me -- does not help. We are just getting dug in on an issue that we should be able to work out rationally and fairly, without burdening WP:Arbitration or WP:Mediation, or whatever.

I promise to WP:Don't be a dick, if you will reciprocate. Thanks for the direct communication. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Stan

User:7&6=thirteen, please check again, carefully. They are identical in every respect - that's the way the template works, it only produces one reflist. If you are unwilling to confirm even this simple fact, then how can we possibly achieve consensus on anything substantive? As for the rest, if you're willing to redact your personal comment, mentioned on the Talk: page, then I will believe your promise not to "be a dick". Jayjg 23:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I the interest of expediting settlement, I will redact the remark that gave you offense. Let this be a good beginning to a new chapter. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Stan

This is completely incorrect. The two reflists were identical at all times. The only way you got them to be different was by modifying my own comment in the section above, putting "nowiki" statements around it. And you've done it again, even worse, making my comment completely unreadable. Just as you've told me not to modify your comments, please don't modify mine. You are exhibiting extreme bad faith here, after I have reached out to you again. Jayjg 23:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

That was an inadvertence, not an intentional slight. In an earlier iteration, there were two different sets of references that did display. I did redact my comment as promised Please redact your personal comment above. I am not exhibiting extreme bad faith. And your going out of your way to say so is a bad start. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 23:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Stan

It's bad faith, because I've explained many times that the two sets of references were always identical. That's the way the references template works. I've explained it over and over, and rather than believing me, or even comparing the two lists, you have reverted me, and stubbornly insisted here that they somehow differed. Look, the whole history of the talk page is available to you; if they differed in any version in the history, any at all, then it still exists in the history. Link me to that version of the Talk: page where they differed. Show me which one is your version, the "earlier iteration" where "there were two different sets of references that did display". If you can show me that time when they differed, I'll readily admit I was wrong. If you can't, then please admit you were wrong. That would be a very good start. Jayjg 23:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You are right that I can't find it. Although I know I did see it, although it may have been in a "Show Preview" mode, I'm not sure. I know I had trouble with it earlier. So as far as the edit history, I can't find it and I was wrong. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Stan

Thank you for admitting that. Jayjg 00:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I apologize -- I've done a lot of that lately. Experience teaches it's better to admit than cover up. BTW, our bluejays are back after the West Nile had devastated them, and they seem (in our area) to be bigger than they used to be. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 00:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Stan

I'm glad to hear they're recovering; corvids were particularly hard hit. Blue Jays are pretty hardy, though, attractive and hard to keep down, which is one of the things I like about them. Perhaps your local subspecies is being replaced by Cyanocitta cristata bromia? Jayjg 03:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, we're in Northern Michigan north of Sturgeon Point Light along the Lake Huron Shore in a cedar swamp. Given the location and habitat, you are probably right that we are seeing more Cyanocitta cristata bromia – Northern Blue Jay and we are not seeing the Cyanocitta cristata cyanotephra – Interior Blue Jay. Our other home in Warren, Michigan, Southeast Michigan has jays back but they aren't (I don't think) the larger variety -- my wife is more of a birder than I. The crows are back after having been devastated, too. That was a good thought. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 12:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Stan

Toledo Harbor Light

Hi. I removed the link to imagekind because of the commercial nature of the website. As it stands the article has images of the lighthouse. There may be even more images available on commons. Dawnseeker2000 20:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

thanks for pointing me at

Alden B. Dow and yes, I have a few ideas, perhaps even some photos that I can dig up. My recent computer crash wiped-out my photo index so searching for particular images is tougher than it used to be. Also my brother, maybe two of them, are visiting through the begining of next week, so it is likely to be a week until I do anything. But after that . . ...... who knows? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 20:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the book suggestions. I already have both (even in New Mexico) and it was in the Artists of Early Michigan that I discovered Edward Wagner. Carptrash (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

See Also: Three Hares

Hi there. I recently removed several "See Also" sections linking to Three Hares, as I failed to see the relevance. I then noticed they were all added by you so I thought I'll ask. Was this added to any single article about a museum in which there is a single exhibit related? At the least I'd think "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent" (WP:ALSO). Anyway, I stopped removing them until we discuss this. --Muhandes (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Duly noted. I will try to annotate in the next week. I am under a deadline here, and then am going out of town. Thank you for the advice. I don't know which articles you removed them from, so it is difficult to respond. Best regards and happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 12:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Stan

The ones removed from are Israel Museum, Beth Hatefutsoth, Jewish Museum Berlin and Horb am Neckar, but the relation is not clear in other cases too, for instance History of the Jews in Galicia (Eastern Europe), Cathedral of Trier, History of the Jews in Lithuania, History of the Jews in Poland etc. Frankly, even now that I know the relation, in many cases I'm not sure it belongs in the "See Also". The rule is "links that would be in the body of a hypothetical perfect article", and with such a slim connection I'm not sure they would be. --Muhandes (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess relevance is in the eyes of the beholder. Israel Museum, Beth Hatefutsoth, Jewish Museum Berlin and Horb am Neckar are all places which have examples of Three hares in them. Indeed, all of these are mentioned in the Three hares article, and they are referenced. Indeed, if one wants to understand wooden synagogue architecture and art, I would think that Three hares would be a good place to start. The rest are similarly related. One of the things that Misplaced Pages linking does best is pull the world and subjects together -- it gives one perspective. Errant strings can become a loosely wound ball. I would err on the side of too much of the irrelevant, rather than too little of the relevant. If it is there, readers can click on it and decide for themselves. If it is not there, they probably won't find it themselves. 'Out of sight, out of mind' so to speak. You could add annotations to the 'See also', for example. But if you have an irrepressible urge to weed, do what you will. I personally like to plant. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Stan

I agree, relevance is in the eyes of the beholder. But I like the guidelines in WP:ALSO, so while a perfect article about wooden synagogue might have included Three Hares as a repeating motif, I doubt Horb am Neckar, Israel Museum, or History of the Jews in Lithuania would. Horb am Neckar is a town in which there used to be a synagogue (it is no longer there) which had this motif. That's quite a long way to go. Israel Museum is a museum in which there is a reconstruction of a synagogue which has it. History of the Jews in Lithuania I don't even know where to start. Yes, wooden synagogue are related, but was a Three Hares ever used in any wooden synagogue in Lithuania? I'm not sure. What would the annotation be? I think there is a line between planting a seed and random linking, which is what the WP:ALSO guideline is for. Anyway, this is just am interesting discussion, I don't really care so much, it was just an oddity. Cheers. --Muhandes (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Muhandes: FWIW, this article is better sourced than most of Misplaced Pages. I did not arbitrarily pick out any of those -- they are all in the sources. That synagogues disappeared from Eastern Europe does not mean that they should be wiped from memory. Far from it. In fact, their disappearance would be something that Misplaced Pages should document; we ought not to be complicit in the crimes of the past.
OTOH, I only have so much time, and have been trying to cut down on editing. It is endless. It is virtually thankless. And at times we have to deal with editors who have an entirely different vision of an encyclopedia, or who don't know (or care) about the subject matter. For them enforcement of rules is more important than content. I would hasten to add that I am not making an accusation here against you or anyone. WP:AGF. I for one have neither the time nor the inclination to be a WP:Administrator. BTW, I've noticed your work on the lighthouse articles, and think you have made a very nice conribution. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC) SrAN

Thanks for the kind words. Happy editing yourself. --Muhandes (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention that I have a mixed reaction to WP:NOR and WP:Reliable sources. I have seen this overused in a Procrustean way that is disconcerting.

Given the German character, it is not surprising that they have fostered the German Misplaced Pages. This is the country that declared in the Reinheitsgebot the legally acceptable ingredients in beer. Frankly, while admiring German beers, I think that the Belgian approach is more adventurous and fun. I recognize I am mixing my metaphors, and these Ethnic stereotypes are to be taken with a grain of salt -- and I apologize to anyone and everyone who may chance on this and take offense. In any event, I hope that English Misplaced Pages does not go the way of the German Misplaced Pages on sourcing. But it could. These kinds of fundamental controversies percolate below the surface all the time. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Stan

Barber's pole

I like barber's poles and anything with helixes in them. Getting above 20,000 bytes was a coincidence! Bigturtle (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Now you have me thinking - worrying even. I am recovering from a back injury and am spending little time doing anything except winging. Fortunately, no bloody bandages. I just read about barber poles in some fiction set in the 12th century or so. Wonder if I can dig up a reference? Carptrash (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Triskelion

Please give one good reason why a triskelion is an "optical illusion"... AnonMoos (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I replied on your talk page. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Stan

The PDF file nicely assembles different symbols (though it's a little New-Agey, and by no means clearly a reliable source by Misplaced Pages standards), but it only states that certain particular forms of the Tomoe exhibit figure-ground vacillation -- which is a long way from saying that the Triskelion in general is an "optical illusion". AnonMoos (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Whatever -- just because one form of the Tomoe shows figure-ground vacillation, that doesn't mean that all forms of the Triskelion are so-called "optical illusions". AnonMoos (talk) 21:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Now Triquetra

You kind of went wild with the categories on that article, and there's the same problem with the "optical illusions" category. Just because a new-agey PDF file mentions that a related symbol (not the Triquetra itself) shows figure-ground vacillation, that doesn't mean that the triquetra is an "optical illusion". AnonMoos (talk) 21:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Now Triple Spiral

Please don't throw a large number of only very vaguely-relevant (if at all relevant), categories onto articles, and don't add "Category:Vision rivalry" to all articles about visual symbols... AnonMoos (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Oliver Hazard Perry

I have rewritten a key paragraph of this article to divide it up into two paragraphs, and clarify it a little; take a look. Bigturtle (talk) 23:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Dueling was an occupational hazard of the pre-Civil War U.S. Navy. Perry's War of 1812 colleague, Stephen Decatur, was killed in a duel. I am not sure whether a blow-by-blow account of all of the challenges, etc., would be appropriate in Perry's case; he died from other causes.

As for the Perry/Elliott specific dispute, my very limited knowledge indicates that was a can of worms and a half. The friends of the two sides continued to fight long after the two principals were dead, and I am under the impression that one of the impetuses behind construction of the Battle of Lake Erie Memorial 100 years later was to try to end the controversy in Perry's favor. The memorial was deliberately named the Perry's Victory and International Peace Memorial.

One underlying fact was that as a member of a prominent New England family, Perry's memory was naturally supported by prominent members of the Whig Party and, later, the Republican Party, while Elliott came from a Southern state and, sure enough, you see him developing a patron-client relationship with the very Democratic President John Tyler towards the end of his life and career. So the whole mess might have had political elements as well. Bigturtle (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Cougars in Upper Peninsula and Northern Michigan

I am not pleased that an editor is taking the position that the existences of Cougars in the first location (which will I believe spill over to the second) cannot be mentioned in the article, notwithstanding that reliable and complete references were included. To say that they do not exist, or aren't worth reporting seems to be perverse. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Stan

Proving that Cougars do not exist is not so easy, given all the contrary evidence as cited in Upper Peninsula. It is rather like reliably proving that "water babies do not exist." See The Water-Babies, A Fairy Tale for a Land Baby. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Indeed, there is ample evidence, which only committed non-believers will disregard. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Stan

Templates for citation

I am putting this here so I can find it. Thanks again

Reference templates

Imzadi, You've been leading by example, and I am being guilted into adopting citation templates. Is there an easier way to use them? Less cumbersome? Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Stan

I use them primarily because no matter what order I format the parameters, I get consistent results. I tend to copy/paste the information off the online source, so it might be pasted in a different order, but it always outputs the same.

The easiest way I know is to learn the standard set of template names and parameter names. They're quite consistent My rules of thumb are:

• {{cite web}} for webpage-only content
• {{cite book}} for books available in print, even if an online or e-book edition is being cited
• {{cite news}} for newspaper articles (and TV station articles) that would also appear in the print edition (reported in the news broadcast)
• {{cite journal}} for magazines and scientific journals, even if hosted online
• {{cite map}} for maps, even if an electronic edition (There are {{google maps}}, {{yahoo maps}} and {{bing maps}} to shortcut the information for those online maps.)
• {{cite press release}} for press releases, even if hosted online
• There are others as well for things like video or audio recordings.

When it comes to parameters:

• |lastn= |firstn= for author names. If there are multiple authors, add a number in place of the n to separate them out. If there is only one, drop the number.
• |author= if the author is an organization, which is rare. I only use organizations as an author if the publisher is different and the organization is explicitly credited as an author
• |title= for the title of the article, map, press release, web page or book. Convert the title to Title Case.
• |work= the name of the website (which isn't the URL and should be different from the publisher), the name of the newspaper, etc.
• |publisher= the company that publishes the content. For most newspapers, this isn't really needed, but this is where to put the TV or radio station's call letters. (I don't use the station's branding as outside of their viewing/listening area, no one knows who "9&10 News" would be, but they'd understand WWTV-TV.)
• |location= the location, if known, of the source. I skip this if the location is listed in the newspaper's name. I usually skip this on state government sources since the assumption would be that it was published in the state capital. (Sometimes with DOT sources, the location is the district office because the source only pertains to a district.)
• |date= The date of publication. Similarly, |year= if only the year is known. Bots will fix this during other edits if you use the "wrong" one.
• |page= |pages= use one or the other but not both. The former uses "p. #" as the output, and the latter uses "pp. #" instead. If you have a range of pages, use an en dash (–) as the separator, not a hyphen (-).
• |accessdate= for the date you accessed the source, if an online link is provided.
• |url= if there is a link to the source, feel free to add it. Except for webpages though, this is usually quite optional.
• |format= this is a multipurpose parameter. If the URL links to a PDF, you should indicate that. Same for anything like an Excel file, a Word document, etc. Also, if a subscription is required, I list "Subscription required" to alert readers that they might have to pay to get the article.
• |archiveurl= |archivedate= are useful if the webpage is no longer accessible through the website, but it is hosted at http://www.archive.org/ or another site. In that case, use the original URL in the |url= parameter
• The last parameters I use are things like |isbn= |issn= and the like. ISBNs are standard numbers for books, and ISSNs are used on some journals and magazines. If you can provide one of these, the reader will get link to a search page. From there, he can click to find the book in the WorldCat library catalog search, Amazon or Google Books, among other options.

All of the different templates list their full parameters in their documentation. {{cite book}} has parameters for chapters and the URL of a chapter as well as things like editors, editions, new publication dates, etc. {{cite map}} has parameters for sections and insets on a map, which would be like a page number in book or magazine. Basically, add all of the known information about a source to the template. Some things won't be known and must be skipped. If you can find the data on the source, try to. Imzadi 1979 → 16:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I know some editors don't like them or don't use them, but for me it's been simple. When I was in school, I had to look up in my Writer's Inc reference book to see how to format bibliography entries for my school papers. With the templates, I just supply the information and the template formats it for me. If a piece of information is missing, it knows how to reformat the output to accommodate it. (If an author is given, the date/year information appears in parentheses before the title information. If there isn't an author, the year is moved later so that the citation starts with the title.) When I was doing the Grand Rapids Press articles out of my library's Newsbank archive to list on the UP article talk page, I copied and pasted the information from the head of the article. That meant that the author was pasted in after the article title, but the template rearranged my data to the proper output. Imzadi 1979 → 16:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

In law school (Harvard blue book) and in 37 years of the practice of law, I had to use various forms of citations. I am well familiar with the regimen, but have not wanted to internalize a new system. But I will prove that "you can't teach an old dog new tricks" is wrong. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 18:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC) Stan

The Reftools button is your friend! I use it religiously, but I haven't quite memorized the syntax like Imzadi1979 has. –Fredddie™ 21:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Barber pole grasshopper

Imzadi, I did not want to post this on your talk page. I under stand that the "in use" tag, when read in the font it has, and at a certain magnification, actually looked like the "muse" tag. Indeed, I understand your intensity and anguish. And I don't want to break my promise to not interfere with you or your muse. I am leaving and found this additional source. U an memorializing it here. Hope it helps. “Barber pole grasshopper” a/k/a “painted grasshopper” is said to be the most beautifuil grasshopper. Beth Thiret, Colorado State University Extension Master Gardener in Larimer County "Ugh: What to do about Grasshoppers". Thank you and happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 21:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC) Stan

Just a comment about that source. It's not published by the CSU Extension. It's published by The Recorder in Berthoud, CO. "CSU Extension Master Gardener in Larimer County" is Ms. Thiret's title. I've updated the article to reflect the correct publisher and publication date and location. My mantra in doing references is to supply the greatest amount of available information on the source without being redundant. If the newspaper name has the location in its title, then duplicating the location isn't needed. If we're using a source from the flagship newspaper of a publisher of the same name, then including the publisher isn't needed either. (That assumes of course that the publisher is readily known.) I do a little digging through "About us" or "Contact us" pages on websites to fill in the information. I somewhat regularly take articles to WP:FAC and that level of detail is scrutinized there to determine if a source is reliable. It's a practice I've spread to any article I'm working on to save future work. Imzadi 1979 → 01:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Folk etymology: Your input requested

Hi, 7+6=13 -- I am looking for people with interests in folklore (editors I’ve encountered on folklore/mythology articles as well as elsewhere) to visit talk:Folk etymology, where there is an ongoing edit dispute. One view (three people) holds that the term is exclusive to linguistics, and another (just me) finds that the term has been formally defined within folklore, and used in academic journals in that sense for more than a century. The page is currently locked. I ask your input ‘’’not in support of either view,’’’ but because discussion seems to have come to a standstill, it seems to be a page few stumble across, and needs fresh viewpoints to get unstuck. Thanks! DavidOaks (talk) 17:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Folk etymology: Your input requested

Hi, SS -- I am looking for people with interests in folklore (editors I’ve encountered on folklore/mythology articles as well as elsewhere) to visit talk:Folk etymology, where there is an ongoing edit dispute. One view (three people) holds that the term is exclusive to linguistics, and another (just me) finds that the term has been formally defined within folklore, and used in academic journals in that sense for more than a century. The page is currently locked. I ask your input not in support of either view, but because discussion seems to have come to a standstill, it seems to be a page few stumble across, and needs fresh viewpoints to get unstuck. Thanks! DavidOaks (talk) 18:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)