User talk:Icairns/archive/archive 01

My Talk archive

Please feel free to resurrect articles into my current talk page if you feel they are unresolved.

Thanks, ian cairns 17:47, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Tangier Garrison

Is this page a copy vio of a book? -Tangier Garrison. Burgundavia 20:57, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

I hope I'm replying in the correct place... The text for Tangier Garrison was removed from the article 'Tangier'. I am not the supplier of the text, so I've no idea whether this is a vio or not - I just moved it. If the text has to go, we would probably need something equivalent. Looking further, it seems as though S.Holbourn added the text (and added his name) on 9th May 2004

I think maybe I will contact S. Holbourn and ask about the copyright status of the book. Burgundavia 23:09, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

Baron Eliot

Hello there. Generally speaking, we haven't shown the succession of merged titles since they're all held by the same person. Even though the eldest son of the Earl of St Germans is know as Lord Eliot, he isn't the holder of that peerage, and is still a commoner. Mackensen 00:30, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Hello to you. I understand the difference between Titles being Held vs Used and am grateful that the distinction is being maintained. I would have preferred to adjust the succession tables for Baron / Lord Eliot to indicate and re-label the succession as Usage rather than just being deleted, since I feel that information has now been lost rather than corrected (there were complications with older brothers who used the title Lord Eliot but died before inheriting the title Earl of St Germans). I have much more information to post - being in postal contact with the current Earl (holder)and his son Jago, Lord Eliot (user) - but will hold back until we have an acceptable format. Ian 08:25 22 May 2004 (BST)

The Stirling University move

Hi. I undid your cut'n'paste move from Stirling University to University of Stirling. Doing a cut'n'paste move essentially hides the edit history (it's still there, but someone has to back-follow a redirect to find it). The best thing is to move the page, which conserves the history. A non-admin can move a page over a no-history redirect (which this was), but in other cases you'll need an admin to delete the "target" article to make room. I've done this, so I think the article ends up at the correct place with its history intact. No harm done. Keep up the good work sorting out all those university categories. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:29, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hello Finlay - Thanks for that. I've now spotted this move thingie, but, as you say, I'll need to ask before swapping / moving in future. I'll also need to own up to a few more of those swaps... Try looking at the University of Exeter, Reading, and possibly a few more. What's the formal way for calling up a duty Admin when you need one? Icairns 22:06, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If you can look in your contributions list, and make up a full list, we can fix 'em together. I guess the "proper" protocol would go something like:

• check to see if the "target" only has a no-history redirect - in that case you should be able to do the move yourself
• if it has a redirect with some history (and you've checked there's nothing in the history worth keeping) you can list the redirect on Wikipedia:Speedy deletions with a reason saying something like "Deleting a redirect that has no useful history, to make way for a non-controversial page move to XXX" (a valid reason for a speedy delete per Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion). If someone thinks its controversial it'll end up on wikipedia:Redirects for deletion, but these aren't controversial, so not to worry.

or you can just ask some random admin - most are helpful types. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:28, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Righto. Looking back at major edits only (in order to see as far back as joining at the beginning of May!!), I've spotted: [[Upton, Berkshire]] vs [[Upton, Slough]], [[University of Reading]] vs [[Reading University]], [[Reading, Berkshire|Reading]] vs [[Reading (activity)]], [[St David's College, Lampeter]] vs [[University of Wales Lampeter]], [[Birkbeck College]] vs [[Birkbeck]], [[University of Edinburgh]] vs [[Edinburgh University]], [[Exeter University]] vs [[University of Exeter]], [[Reading University]] vs [[University of Reading]], [[Stirling University]] vs [[University of Stirling]], [[University of Wales, Bangor]] vs [[University of Wales Bangor]]. I think that's it... Thanks, [[User:Icairns|Icairns]] 22:47, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Eek! I've added this to the "to do" section on my user: page, but I'm too scared to do stuff tonight. I'll fix 'em in the next day or two, but I'll gladly dump the nasty task of fixing the resulting redirects (to the new pages) to you (I already did it for the Stirling Uni ones). I'm assuming that in each of the pairs above the latter is the correct name? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:20, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I can't remember ever using so many colons... In the list, the 'University of' version wins over the alternative; other correct versions are Upton, Slough and Birkbeck. I think Reading vs Reading (activity) was a disambiguation (i.e. the Reading page leads to all other Reading variants) but it's worth checking; for Bangor use the no-comma version. Thanks again Icairns 23:35, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Open University

Please see the talk page for the OU re the categoristion issue. The OU (and OUBS) are British Universities, not English. --VampWillow 23:03, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Agreed Icairns 23:11, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thankyou. I'm aware you take a strong interest in universities (I read the above!) but the OU/OUBS are the only ones that are truly 'British' at the moment, so I waited until you responded before reverting for the final time. --VampWillow 23:14, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

My apologies. I was into 'assembly line' editing mode, trying to regroup a category, and wondering why I had some stragglers. I should have been looking further afield from my focus - sorry! Icairns 23:33, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

no probs ... I found myself doing it last week when I was adding -- category of London Districts -- like a mad thing. Kent and Oxbridge seems to have not moved yet, btw. Have to say though, following the links I'm not sure an encyclopedia is the right place to list members of a Student Union (Kent again). What do you think? --VampWillow 23:40, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think that Oxbridge, London and Kent are subcategories of English universities, with London and Kent also being articles as well. I disagree with the use of a category for Uni of Kent - and it wasn't me that put it there... Uni of London seems ok - because of its collegiate structure, as with Oxford and Cambridge I suppose. Mind you , the Uni of Kent can't make up its mind whether the Duck Warden is a member of the Student Union or one of its Hall Committees... Thanks for your involvement (PS: adjusted your addition above of Catrgory London Districts to remove my Talk page from this category). Icairns 23:49, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Places in Berkshire

I've probably been a bit hasty - if you're going to add as much as is in the Buckinghamshire article, then go ahead and revert. But if you're planning on expanding the list more gradually, then please keep it in the Berkshire article for the time being. In addition, there have been debates over the nature of traditional and administrative counties which need careful editing over if you plan to cover these in your introduction. In many cases, a long list of villages is better served by being split between the various district articles. Warofdreams 18:25, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Re: 'former County'. Berkshire was never technically abolished (and I'm not meaning this is in a lunatic manner like some might). Cleveland, Avon, and Humberside were abolished, as the Orders specifying them actually explicitly did that [1]. However, the order for Berkshire [2] did not do that - it just abolished the county council and transferred the functions to the districts. As a demonstration of this, here - [ http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1999/90001--b.htm] - is a piece of legislation passed in 1999 that defines the European Parliament constituences. You'll note it refers to just the "County of Berkshire". So there's no need to say "the former county of Berkshire". The Royal County of Berkshire is alive and well and includes Slough! Morwen - Talk 19:50, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm adding List of places in Berkshire - so this adds some legitimacy. Icairns 20:54, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Kedermister Library

Please note that Kedermister Library is definitely the correct spelling (without the n). See - The Kedermister Library: an account of its origins and a reconstruction of its contents and arrangement by Jane Francis Records of Buckinghamshire Volume 36 1994 pp. 62-85. ISSN 0967-2885

Can you amend your redirects? Thanks Mervyn

My apologies for the above error. I drive past this library almost daily - and misremembered the spelling. There's also http://www.buckscc.gov.uk/archives/Kederminster_Library/

which is a Record Office website and which also misspells the name. I'll need to contact an Admin to assist the deletion and reassignment, but will do so. Apologies again. Icairns 17:45, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I took care of the deletion and move. If you want quick sysop action on this sort of thing, you can use Wikipedia:Speedy deletions rather than Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion—the former page is monitored much more closely and generally gets a response within minutes. —No-One Jones 19:28, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Many thanks for that. Icairns 23:42, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for quick response -- I will improve and de-stub the article. Mervyn

Cut-and-Paste Moves

Please excuse this rushed note, as IMO you deserve a formal welcome.

More urgently, please click on the "move" link that appears on most pages, and look into the appropriate references that it gives, re use of move instead of cuttiing and pasting. I will fix Birkbeck in the next week or so, and don't feel too bad about it, but your vigorous efforts here will be even more valuable when you have those principles under your belt.

If what you read is confusing, please feel free to use me as resource in getting squared away.

And keep up the good work!
--Jerzy(t) 03:15, 2004 Jun 23 (UTC)

Whoops! Read more of this page only after saving. Sorry for the bother. --Jerzy(t) 03:19, 2004 Jun 23 (UTC)

No problem. Welcome to my talk page  :-)) Icairns 21:42, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

RE Tangiers and Palace of Placentia, You are correct, I appologise but have allready modified the page including the removal of that link, so are you sure you are not reading an old history page?- I thought the article to long and complicated as it was, and it reads better now, please comment if you disagree. All the best: Faedra 18:18, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Oops. Very sorry. I was trying to interpret the diff version from Watchlist, and seem to have misread / walked through a timeslip... Many thanks, Icairns 18:37, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Genealogy

Welcome to WP, and thanks for categorising the external links. I doubt if WP will ever overtake Cindy's List, but we have the advantage of instant scrutiny. Now as an interesting juxtaposition of ideas, my niece Cindy Carrad is "reading" at Reading... Robin Patterson 00:56, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I could imagine WP getting to the stage of a dedicated page of genealogy links for each of, say, UK, USA, etc. etc., but probably not yet awhile. As you say, Cindi's List should have no fears... I suppose in some people's eyes, we may be Berks in Berks?? :-)) Icairns 15:26, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

disambiguation format for VC

I think it woud be a more standard format for disambiguation to use "Firstname Lastname (VC)" rather than "Firstname Lastname, VC". This is the format recommended by the manual of style for persons, and it has the distinct advantage that you can use the pipe trick to easily create a link to the person's name that does not display the "(VC)". older≠wiser 03:06, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I think I was following another (nonstandard) page naming. I'll try to move those pages across to the new format, although I'm not sure how quickly I can do this - being busy for a couple of weeks... Ian Cairns 11:40, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've just completed moving all my names across to the correct layout. Most were yet to be created. Ian Cairns 13:53, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Why the link?

Hi Ian. I note you amended an item today by wikifying the month of May. Is there a convention to wikify every single thing that can be linked to somewhere else, even tho it it is not necessarily relevant? I think clicking on May is not all that useful because when you arrive there it has nothing to do with the subject. Cheers. Moriori 03:14, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

The reason I did this was because I thought that we were supposed to wikify all dates to enable the viewer's date preferences to take effect. Looking back at the help page, I think that May 1, for example, would need wikifying and points at a page to do with May 1st. My May link may or may not (yet?) work for user's date preferences (does it display as 5 if preferences are so set?). However, it does link to a page to do with the month of May, which I thought was intended. Ian Cairns 11:54, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Best layout for Robert Scott/Robert Falcon Scott

Hi Ian, good to meet you. I noticed you replaced the redirect at Robert Scott with a short article on the VC-winning Robert Scott and a link to SotAntarctic. I think that SotA is much more prominent than VC Scott and that we should probably keep a redirect at Robert Scott. We would then add a sentence at the top of Robert Falcon Scott that says "For the Robert Scott awarded the Victoria Cross in 1900, see Robert Scott (soldier)". That is probably the layout best in line with WP conventions. What do you think? Pcb21| Pete 09:15, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hello Pete, good to meet you too. I attempted to straighten out all the VC recipients last night (over several hours) and hit Robert Scott travelling at speed... I'm sure there will be further Robert Scotts turning up over the months. I'm happy to move the VC man out to Robert Scott (VC). Would it help to keep Robert Scott as an equal disambiguation page pointing at your page and mine? Ian Cairns 11:44, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Completed. Robert Scott, VC is now at Robert Scott (VC) Ian Cairns 12:29, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Reflecting further, I agree that the disambig page is the way to go. Pcb21| Pete 12:51, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

James Munro

• Your link to James Munro, VC is doesn't go anywhere unless you write at least a very brief Article about him so that your link then goes to that article. I have no objection at all to a link to him on my own James Munro page, but I do think that a living novelist, whether he uses a pseudonym or not (Ellery Queen is a pseudonym, for instance, and Stephen King has used one also), takes precedence over a soldier who has been dead for 150 and is otherwise unknown except for his VC.Hayford Peirce 19:09, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've adjusted the James Munro disambiguation to alter the text you mention, and hope this is satisfactory now. I note that James Mitchell (his real name) has two pseudonyms, and that his WP article is under one of these pseudonyms. Ian Cairns 20:27, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Speed of light

Just curious as to why you changed all the [[kilometre]]s (etc.) links to [[kilometre|kilometres]] when the parser already extends the colour, underline and effect of the link to trailing esses? Noisy 00:03, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My apologies - I didn't realise this happened. I thought I had seen some trailing 's' on other pages. I'll keep an eye open for this in future. Many thanks Ian Cairns 00:13, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

NP Noisy 00:56, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Earls of St Germans

Hello! Nice work on Baron Eliot and Earl of St Germans. To address your question on "Earl" v. "Lord":

• In the third person, the first reference should be to "The Earl of St Germans" or "A. B., nth Earl of St Germans." Thereafter, one uses "his Lordship" (in highly formal contexts) or, more often, "Lord St Germans."
• In the second person, one uses "Your Lordship" (if a social "inferior") or as "My Lord" (if an equal or superior, such as another peer). Though "My Lord" is supposedly reserved for equals and superiors, it is used more often than "Your Lordship." It is also possible to use "Lord St Germans."

A fuller explanation is given on Styles and titles of peers. -- Emsworth 14:55, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

Fermion

Hi Icairns,

Can you check the page Fermion. An unidentifed user has made some strange contribution. Looks like mumbo jumbo. Needs considerable editing from someone who knows what he is writing about. Something for you ? JoJan 17:17, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Many thanks for the compliment!  :-)) Ian Cairns 17:42, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've had a long look at this page, and the extra para is not really intelligible either in conjunction with the rest of the article or with respect to any other online resources on Fermion. I'm loathe to delete it simply on grounds of comprehension - but I'd suggest either deleting the para or moving it to a discussion page on particle physics? Your opinion, please. Ian Cairns 23:11, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Minor edits at Mechanical work

Hi, I'm not really a specialist, but I'd say that some of the edits you've made to Mechanical work are not minor. The general rule IIRC is that an edit should only be marked "minor" if there's no reasonable way a user could disagree with it.

I'm going to disagree with your addition of a "caveat" in the definition and remove it from the article. Please proceed to talk: for discussion. --Smack 18:37, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I made four changes filed under minor immediately before your above comment (read on my return from holiday)

1) I linked 'meter' to metre (the name of the relevant article)

2) I added the category 'Physical quantity' to the article

3) I corrected my category so that it would appear under W for Work

4) I added the words 'in the direction of the force' to the definition sentence.

I'm still trying to work out what was major about any of these. The last edit (which you reversed) is the one that causes the majority of my students the greatest problem. They see a force of 10N travelling over a distance (not a position) of 10m and they think that 100 J(=Nm) of work has been performed. However, this is only true if the direction of travel and the direction of the force are identical. Life is fine once you have moved across to vectors. However, some of our readership may not be as adept at vectors as you are. I'll add this to the article's talk page shortly. Ian Cairns 00:23, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

City of London / Middlesex

Why the Middlesex category? It might have been accurate in the past, but is not very accurate now, surely? Nor particularly helpful? --Tagishsimon

Or (having read the definition of middlesex), I could be talking nonsense. You decide. --Tagishsimon

There are a number of 'traditional' definitions described in Wikipedia. This was meant to add to the traditional knowledge of many 'Greater London' placenames. I'll continue if that's OK. Thanks, Ian Cairns 20:38, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm still a bit troubled by it, probably on a couple of counts:

• Which Middlesex are you referring to: Administrative, Traditional, Ceremonial or Postal?
• There's a risk we could categorise a place under a series of designations - London, Greater London, Middlesex ... in other areas, such as Northumberland, the current boundary is respected for categorisation and so Newcastle Upon Tyne falls into Tyne and Wear, rather than Northumberland. Taking your Middlesex as a precedent, I could categorise Newcastle as Nothumberland. Of County Durham as Northumbria, since its borders once stretched that far south and further.

Given that I'm responding in the cold light of morning, I'm obviously still uncomfortable with the categorisation. best wishes --Tagishsimon

I've tried to follow the traditional county, and used the current list of places in middlesex article to do this.

In other areas, both traditional and current counties are documented. For example, I tried to recategorise Slough from Buckinghamshire (where Wikipedia had it) across to Berkshire - where it moved in the 1970s. I was told at that time that it was usual to keep both trad and current. I've looked for a reference to this prior discussion but can't find it. However Slough can still be seen to belong to two counties, and it's not the only example. The text describes the situation. Ian Cairns 09:40, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

English

Hi. Please disambiguate English on your user page. For example, English. Thanks. RedWolf 02:50, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Done. Ian Cairns 05:50, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Spellings in "Alumin(i)um can"

I see you've changed the spelling of "Aluminum" in the article Aluminum can. It's considered not a good idea to just change spellings without a discussion. I'm reverting your changes. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 22:22, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

This was part of the preparation for moving 'aluminum can' to aluminium can. I've now edited the Talk:Aluminium can page accordingly. Ian Cairns 22:28, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Dunstanburgh Castle

Hi, can you please reply on WP:RfD to my query? Thanks! Noel 21:38, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Done. Apologeis for the delay in replying. Ian Cairns 21:54, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No problem. See my reply on WP:RfD about no need to edit the articles. BTW, I didn't quite grok the "Last edit was bounced" part - did you mean you'd edited it some time in the past and your reply was lost, or that you'd gotten a "conflicting edits" message? Noel 22:24, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My reply tonight had a problem. It looked like a bounced edit - but I'm usually able to recognise a conflicting edit - no problem. Thanks again, Ian Cairns 22:39, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sure, glad to help. Noel 23:05, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Chris Wood

Hi, Ian. I've replied to your question on User talk:chris_j_wood. -- Chris j wood 19:52, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So have I... :-)) Thanks!, Ian Cairns 20:32, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And again -- Chris j wood 21:20, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Current Talk and My 'To Do' List

Are you the person who has contributed the bulk of the Natural Units definition? There are some false impressions and some inaccuracies. Planck did not define a "Planck Current" and no physicist that I am aware of would define the Elementary charge, e, to be the "Planck Charge". The natural unit of charge (in the sense of Planck) would be the value that would cause the Coulomb Force Constant k = 1/(4*pi*epsilon0) to be equal to unity just as Planck chooses mass, length, and time to make G = 1. Personally I believe it is more natural to set epsilon0 to 1 (and similarly set 4*pi*G to 1) but that is a different argument.

anyway, the Planck Charge is sqrt(hbar*c*4*pi*epsilon0) and the Planck Current is sqrt(hbar*c*4*pi*epsilon0)/sqrt(hbar*G/c^5) = c^3*sqrt(G*4*pi*epsilon0) . the Planck Charge is dimensionally identical to e but a slightly different value. Qp = e/sqrt(alpha) where alpha is the fine structure constant.

I am r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com .

more on Natural Units

could you take a look at my talk page? i posted a more current version of that sci.physics.research article that i called "The Most Natural Physical Units". i really believe that the Planck current is wrong on the Natural units page. but, in addition, more thought should be put into the concept of Natural Units and not simply equate them to Planck Units.

r b-j 18:28, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My apologies for not getting back to you quicker. I'll reply in Talk:Natural Units shortly. Apologies again Ian Cairns 23:23, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Removal of Rowlett

Rowlett's numbering system has been proposed for 3 years now. Can you name a few things that have been proposed for at least 10 years that still deserve to be called proposed?? 66.245.122.228 21:45, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your point is? I have queried the status of Rowlett on Talk:Rowlett and Talk:List of numbers. Are you referring to these? Ian Cairns 21:51, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I recently did a Google search and it appears that "gillion"" has thousands of Google hits. 66.245.126.161 16:22, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Billiard, trilliard, quadrilliard are not "standard dictionary numbers"

As noted in Talk:Names of large numbers

The table of "standard dictionary numbers" is intended to be exactly what it says. My purpose is to draw a permanent, stable, neutral, verifiable bright line between these numbers and various other numbers that are proposed, tabulated, occasionally used, etc. If you can find a dictionary that includes the word "billiard" in the sense of 10¹⁵, put it in the table and cite the dictionary in which you found it. With respect to billiard, trilliard, quadrlliard I am not even clear as to whether these words a) are really used in France or other European countries, b) appear in French or other foreign-language dictionaries. If you find them in a foreign-language dictionary I think it would be interesting and legitimate to include them in the table.

See "Are billiards, trilliards, quadrilliards, etc. real?" above.

If you can find it in a dictionary (as the name of a number!) it goes in this table. Otherwise, it does not. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:11, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

P. S. The purpose of tabulating Google hits is to suggest variation in usage frequency among those words that are in dictionaries. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:18, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you feel these words do not exist, and you are using dictionary definitions (as opposed to Google webpage usage) as the sole criterion for their existence, then there is some work to be done on Wikipedia, where articles on these words have existed for some time without any queries having been raised (no, I did not create these) - see billiard, trilliard. The term Quadrilliard is mentioned in List of numbers and Order of magnitude (numbers). I was simply trying to ensure coherence between one part of Wikipedia and another.

Billiarde, for example, does exist in German, see Oxford-Duden English-German dictionary (revised 1997). I do not keep a stock of large dictionaries at home. Ian Cairns 16:47, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

List_of_strange_units_of_measurement

I decided to revert your combining all the references in List_of_strange_units_of_measurement since they are not free standing references, but instead are specific sources for quotations within the article. Having them down at the bottom all together just makes it harder to associate them with what they are a source for. Please respond on Talk:List_of_strange_units_of_measurement if you object. JesseW 07:53, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Responded to in Talk:List_of_strange_units_of_measurement Ian Cairns 08:10, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Calorimetry

Hello Ian. You removed a link that I had added to a company website, reporting that login was required. Login is optional, most of the material on the website is free and open to the public. I have readded the link at the bottom (where it belongs). If you feel it is not a valid link then lets discuss. Thanks for your work on the Wikipedia, I am new here and learning, but what a great resource! Dagimar 12:36, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Hampshire Ian Cairns 23:57, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

River Chew v Chew River

moved to Talk:River Chew

"H" is for "von Höhnel"

You seem to be systematically indexing categories, which is no doubt a very laudable thing, but surely we should be alphabetizing "von Höhnel" under "H"? Best to get this right the first time so you don't have to change later. <g> - Nunh-huh 01:21, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I was following the other entries in the category - a dutchman 'van x' filed under v. I would have thought it best to go for x (or H for Hohnel) - as you suggest - but that will involve much more maintenance that I have available time - at this late juncture Ian Cairns 01:25, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it's very complicated (German, Dutch, compound names, etc)

Keere, Pieter van den

Mies van der Rohe, Ludwig

Van Rensselar, Stephen

Probably it's discussed somewhere in Wikipedia, but who knows where?<g> - Nunh-huh 02:12, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

==Hypercubes== (message moved from Talk:Slough Grammar School) Hello, Mr Cairns, its francis Whilst i was reading about hypercubes on wikipedia, i found this site: http://www.superliminal.com/cube/cube.htm On here you can download 'a fully functional four-dimensional analog of Rubik's cube'. I hope you like it.

Many thanks for this, Francis. Please feel free to use my Talk page for personal messages - or you should be able to email me via Wikipedia! 19:20, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

St Ethelburga's Bishopsgate

Done - deleted the target redirect; moved St Ethelburga's Bishopgate (sic) to St Ethelburga's Bishopsgate; edited St. Ethelburga's Bishopsgate to redirect to the right place. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:35, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Many thanks! Ian Cairns 01:36, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Repairing vandalism

The removal of "SI" from the SI is what is known as vandalism. When you notice an edit like that, the first thing to do is look at the page's history -- in the case of the vandalism to SI, 69.142.123.108 had made two consecutive edits. Your fix, undoing the more recent of those edits, only fixed part of the problem. Considering how minor the changes involved were, the second edit could have gone days before being fixed. --Carnildo 00:55, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I was aware of the arrangements for fixing vandalism, and did attempt to locate previous edits by the person concerned. In this case, I simply missed the earlier edits in this particular case, by accident. Ian Cairns 01:00, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Italic not bold

Use italics for scalars and bold for vectors, not bold for both. Also, don't put ''' around <math> sections. If it works, you're lucky, and it might stop working in the future. Use \mathbf{}. (referring to e.g. [3]) -- Tim Starling 14:03, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for that. For the record, I didn't write the no wiki nor the html version of the brackets. This appears to be a function (bug?) of the edit conversion process in certain circumstances. I searched and found this exact error on another editor's article.

I appreciate the possible ambiguity for bold and vectors. Ian Cairns 13:11, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Hi. According to Wikipedia:Disambiguation it would appear that what is currently at "Degree (disambiguation)" should be at "Degree" since "Degree" is lacking an article. However, I haven't made it so yet because it looks like some histories should be moved also, but I thought I would drop you a note. Happy edits. Hyacinth 02:51, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh yah, you can also move pages, which preserves their edit histories, by clicking "Move this page". Hyacinth 02:57, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for that - I'm happy moving pages where the target doesn't already exist. Because of the heavy linkage to Degree, I created Degree (angle) and Degree (temperature) first. At some stage soon, I'll need to find an admin to sort out the disambig / actual articles. Ian Cairns 19:15, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You might want to look at User:Jnc/Disambiguation where I have some thoughts on how disambiguation is best done. Someone (don't remember their username) was going to lead a charge on getting it made into policy - I didn't have the time/energy. Noel (talk) 00:36, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started the Free the Rambot Articles Project which has the goals of getting users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to...

1. ...all U.S. state, county, and city articles...
2. ...all articles...

using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) version 1.0 and 2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to the GFDL (which every contribution made to Wikipedia is licensed under), but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles (See the Multi-licensing Guide for more information). Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. So far over 90% of people who have responded have done this.

Nutshell: Wikipedia articles can be shared with any other GFDL project but open/free projects using the incompatible Creative Commons Licenses (e.g. WikiTravel) can't use our stuff and we can't use theirs. It is important to us that other free projects can use our stuff. So we use their licenses too.

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template (or {{MultiLicensePD}} for public domain) into their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} with {{MultiLicensePD}}. If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know at my talk page what you think. It's important to know, even if you choose to do anything so I don't keep asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk) 14:25, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Discussion on Alfred North Whitehead to to Talk:Alfred North Whitehead

Exeter alumni

Concerning your new category, please take a look at the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities. / u◦p◦p◦l◦a◦n◦d 17:09, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Millimetre of mercury

I assume from your edit summary content that you want to turn that into an article, right? If so, you don't need to have it deleted - just start editing on it, and ditch the redirect stuff and put in your text instead. Noel (talk) 00:38, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

PS: I don't usually check other User_talk: pages (so that I don't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person with whom I am having a "conversation"), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (above); if you leave a message for me here I probably will not see it. I know not everyone uses this style (they would rather keep all the text of a thread in one place), but I simply can't monitor all the User_talk: pages I leave messages on. Thanks! Noel (talk) 00:38, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I was told elsewhere (a while back now) that the redirect should be deleted to enable a move - to keep any history intact. If it is OK to copy text, then I will go ahead with this shortly. Many thanks, Ian Cairns 19:25, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I just happened to see this when I came to your talk page to leave a comment on a different topic! I meant what I said about "if you leave a reply here, I won't see it"!

Anyway.... yes, if you have a page somewhere else that you want to move to "millimetre of mercury", then yes we should delete that redir. Cut-n-paste moves are Very Bad. That there was a page somewhere else wasn't clear. (Note: this does not apply to situations where you want to cut some content out of another page and move it to "mm of mercury" - that's yet another case, see Wikipedia:Duplicate_articles#How articles should be merged:

If you copy material from one article to the other, you must explain in your edit comment that you have done so, giving the name of the source article .. This is important so that all contributors to the article can be properly credited, as required by the GFDL.

So, did you have a page you want to move to mm of mercury, or some content from another page you wanted to move? Noel (talk) 00:43, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The effect I want to achieve is for: :*[[conventional millimeter of mercury]] :*[[conventional millimetre of mercury]] :*[[millimeter of mercury]] :to redirect to :*[[millimetre of mercury]]

which last article should contain the text currently in conventional millimeter of mercury. Currently there are other redirects around. I'll drop a note on your talk page. Sorry I missed this page previously. Thanks Ian Cairns 01:19, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ah, got it. For future reference:

• AFAIK, if [A] -> [B], and A is a redir with only one item in the edit history, you can move B to A without services of an admin.
• If A has more than one edit, it can be speedy deleted to move B, so there will be no wait.
• Just putting an {rfd} tag on something is not all you need to do - you also need to list the page at WP:RfD. (Things with just the {rfd} do eventually get picked up, as I do period sweeps for them, but it's not the most efficient way, time-wise. Also, when you list things on WP:RfD, you can add an explanation of why you want it deleted, which may help.)

Anyway, all done now; I did the move and fixed all the redirs. Noel (talk) 14:12, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Many thanks!! Ian Cairns 14:39, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Isaac Newton

I've been away from Wikipedia for a while, so I don't yet entirely understand these new-fangled categories. What's behind changing Isaac Newton's category from "Mathematicians" to "British Mathematicians"? He now doesn't appear on the Mathematicians category page, which I think he probably ought to. Is there such a thing as a sub-category, so that every British Mathematician could automatically also be a Mathematician? Better yet, is there a way of defining the category "British Mathematicians" to be the intersection of "Mathematicians" with "Famous British people" (or whatever)? If neither of those things can be done, then it all has to be kept in sync by hand, and I think someone should add Newton back to the Mathematicians category. Onebyone 13:32, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Welcome back. You may need to investigate the usage of categories - but British mathematicians is a sub-category of Mathematicians - so go to Category:Mathematicians and you will find Isaac under the subcategories British mathematicians at the top and not listed with all the Mathematicians. To my mind, the benefit of this hierarchy of categories is that a subcategory may need to be and could be adjusted without having to edit all the individual articles. I didn't implement the idea of categories, but it seems to work quite well. The idea is that more British mathematicians will be so named, and this will increase the subcategory accordingly. Hope that helps. 19:23, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

the benefit of this hierarchy of categories is that a subcategory may need to be and could be adjusted without having to edit all the individual articles

I think this is broken - if there's a category "mathematicians", then I expect every mathematician to be a member of it, and I expect to be able to summon up a list of all mathematicians without having to drop into a subcategory (with its own page) for each nationality. The proper fix, in my opinion, is as I say above to define Newton to be British, define him to be a Mathematician, and define a "British Mathematician" to be the intersection of "British" and "Mathematician". If the software won't let us do that, then I think you're creating yourself a bunch of unnecessary work implementing it by hand in a less good way, and in the process you're making the "Mathematician" category less useful because it doesn't list all the mathematicians except indirectly. In any case, why divide by nationality, rather than by century, or by discipline within mathematics, or any other of the hundreds of ways that people might like to divide up mathematicians? Onebyone 16:59, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would agree that the categories are not working the way you expect them to work. I consider a member of a sub-category still to belong to the original category. Yes, you would need to list subcategories to ensure that you found all members of a category - since the software has no recursive list feature that I have found. In this way, an article belonging to a category at the bottom of a hierarchy of categories belongs to all the 'supercategories'. It does not need to belong to each of the supercategories to achieve this - membership of its category ensures this automatically. The way I think of this is the Venn diagram, where subcategories are subsets of the original category. This does not deny their membership of the original category. There is no reason why Mathematicians should not also be categorised by century, etc. However, this would be a separate categorisation(s) from Mathematicians by nationality. I have just moved several hundred generic science stubs into more appropriate stubs (barring errors) within branches of science, i.e. subcategories of the original science stubs. Although this means that they are still science stubs, it also enables specific experts in each of the branches to work on those articles more appropriate to their specialism. This discussion is mostly about the features of a Wikipedia facility. Is there a more appropriate Wikiplace for us to discuss this? Ian Cairns 12:36, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

" consider a member of a sub-category still to belong to the original category". Yes, but as far as I can tell the MediaWiki software doesn't (at least not in any useful way). So that's the problem. I'm not sure where the proper place to discuss this is - perhaps as a feature request. At the very least it needs to be possible to list all mathematicians, including all members of sub-categories etc, or the category "mathematician" isn't as useful as it should be. Onebyone 19:00, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"There is no reason why Mathematicians should not also be categorised by century, etc." Well, suppose someone tried to do that. Then they'd add Newton to the categories "C17 mathematicians" and "C18 mathematicians" and "applied mathematicians" (or maybe "British applied mathematicians") and so on. In this direction lies madness. I don't think a category should define a combination of two independent properties (in this case "British" and "mathematician"), because this is something which clearly can be automated, and therefore IMO should be. Onebyone 19:00, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To me that seems like a reason why categories don't make sense at all. Someone creates a category called "Romin Cathlukc Prairs" and puts 50 articles in that category, and then you can't move the category so that the name is correctly spelled; all you can do is go back and edit all 50 articles individually. Michael Hardy 01:02, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Clearly the initial category needs to be correct. However, they have been several adjustments of higher categorisations in Wikipedia without affecting individual articles - and this is the benefit. Ian Cairns 01:34, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Vint Cerf

Huh? Did you class him as a mathematician? He's not, he a computer scientist. Noel (talk) 00:44, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It wan't me that so categoried him. He was a PhD Applied Mathematician - I just recategorised from Mathematician -> American Mathematician. I've been busy moving Mathematicians into their nationality subcategories. I'm happy for this categ to be removed. Ian Cairns 01:22, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Archimedes

I find it odd that inclusion in a one particular category of mathematicians is found to be a reason for exclusion from the "mathematicians" category. Mathematicians not belonging to that category are not excluded from the "mathematicians" category in favor of inclusion in some subcategory. It is almost as if you're saying ancient mathematicians, because they are ancient, are not mathematicians. Michael Hardy 00:58, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My interpretation of the hierarchy of Wiki categories is not one of exclusion, but one of better subdefinition. I think that an Ancient Mathematician is a Mathematician. However, the entire category of Ancient Mathematicians is a subcategory of the category of Mathematicians. So, Archimedes is a Mathematician because he is an Ancient Mathematician. Similarly an American Mathematician is a Mathematician; but then the entire category of American Mathematicians is a subcategory of the category of Mathematicians. I don't follow your bit about Ancient Mathematicians being ancient and not mathematicians... If I had replaced categ:Mathematicians by categ:Ancient people or similar, then I could have understood your argument. But I didn't. Ian Cairns 01:32, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Rivers

Ian, thanks for adding the cats to the River Leam, River Cherwell and River Thame articles.

In the case of the Thame, I am not sure why you have reinstated the stub bp. I originally found the article because it was listed as a stub on the UK 'to do' list; I expanded it with Graham's help and I then removed it from the stub list because I think it is now an article, albeit one that could be expanded. Your thoughts would be welcome on my talk page. Andy F 08:09, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No problem - I've removed the stub on second viewing. Thanks, Ian Cairns 22:25, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the cat for Grand Union Canal, exactly which part of this waterway runs through Berkshire? Andy F 22:22, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Slough spur of the Grand Union Canal terminates in Slough, Berkshire. See, for example:

http://www.streetmap.co.uk/streetmap.dll?G2M?X=498820&Y=180435&A=Y&Z=1 Ian Cairns 22:25, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Soil classification

Hello Ian:

Replacing the {{sci-stub}} with a {{geol-stub}} is in error in my humble opinion. Soil classification owes much to geology and the reverse is also true. While many scientific disciplines study and apply soil property criteria to classify natural and engineered conditions, formal soil classification is a subdiscipline of soil science. A reversion to the original would be more accurate, consistent with the International Council for Science which has accepted as separate Scientific Union members the IUSS and the IUGS.

Paleorthid 04:46, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I'll revert. Ian Cairns 08:13, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

sci/geo stubs

(William M. Connolley 21:29, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)) I'm not terribly keen on you converting a pile of sci-stubs wot I wrote into geo stubs. SAR, TAR, AO, etc. Why is this a good idea?

Thanks for your note. I've tried to place a substantial number of generic 'sci-stubs' into more appropriate categories (more often subcategories) - now that there are more categories to choose from. Clearly, if these articles are more appropriately categorised, then there is a better chance of reworking by an appropriate expert - to avoid the stub. If you feel I have misplaced a few (from memory there were only a few that went to geo), then I'm always happy to discuss / revert as appropriate. The only one of your initials that I can recognize is AO Artic Oscillation which seemed to me to be a Climate / Climate Change phenomenon, and hence part of Geography (as the supercategory of category Climate itself shows). Which branch of science do you feel is more appropriate for AO? Ian Cairns 00:24, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 21:24, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)) I'll create a category for climate-stub. Putting them under geography would reflect the state of the art 30 years ago...

Thanks for that. Ian Cairns 22:00, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

Hi, I noticed that you have been doing a lot of stubbing and stub categorizing - good! I just recently created the geol-stub for geology related articles and see that you quickly started using it too and caught a few general sci-stubs that I missed. I have re-categorised a couple of mineral articles that you had placed as chem-stubs, mineralogy is a field of geology - I guess the chemical formula for the mineral triggered the chem-stub ?? I was even thinking about a separate stub for mineralogy/gemstone articles, min-stub, maybe - but thought that might be overdoing it. Just a note to let you know where I'm at :-) -- I agree with your geo-stubs for climate related article stubs in the above comment. Vsmith 03:30, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Many thanks for your note, and for letting me know that you've recategorised some articles - which is fine by me. I was hoping that by shifting generic 'science' stubs into branches of science stubs / other stubs that more specialist people would be able to look at these articles. Thanks again, Ian Cairns 12:23, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Hi- Some of the sci-stubs you've converted to chem-stub would be better the way they were. For example, the Bradford protein assay isn't used much by traditional chemists. It is really a life sciences technique (although it's basis is analytical chemistry). Anyway, I don't think that putting this article in a smaller (and not entirely appropriate) stub-niche will help it attract the attention it needs to improve. See you around the wiki, ike9898 15:47, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

No problem. As you say, its basis is Analytical chemistry, but if biological sciences is better, it can be adjusted. Thanks again, Ian Cairns 15:49, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

River Gradients

Hi. Do you by any chance know where on the web I can find list of river gradients? For example, I was brought up near the River Kent which was reported to be one of the steepest rivers in the country.

I would like to check before I go to the Wandle article, strike "approximately 26.7 km in length and unusually steep for its size" and replace it with "falls 35 m in its 14 Km length".

And how could an Old Paludian forget the River Colne?

RHaworth 09:56, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

Hello Roger - Apologies for the delay in replying. I'm afraid that I don't know where you can find those gradients. I was having enough trouble simply finding a complete list of the Thames tributaries... Hopefully, Wikipedia is fast becoming the best list available. My recollection was seeing the River Colne Hertfordshire in the list some while back - I could be proven wrong. The precise relationship with Colnbrook has only recently become apparent to me. Are you an Old Paludian? There were Old Paludian Haworths in Slough back in ancient times (SHS in 1975). Regards, Ian Cairns 22:47, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

thieves???=

look here Wikipedia_talk:About#thieves.3F.3F.3F

Err... yes... probably. Ian Cairns 20:52, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sialic acid

Hi, I wonder whether the edit on the page Sialic acid by user 129.78.228.114 might be vandalism? Ianmc

Hello Ianmc - I think the user was eliminating duplication / rearranging the text in the article. There were some typos, which I've now fixed. Was there anything that I've missed? Thanks, Ian Cairns 22:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi - If I'm interpreting the revision history correctly the user added the bit about pepsi and flatulence on his first edit, which is somewhat outside the current orthodoxy on the biology of sialic acid. I was thinking of deleting it but didn't really want to go down that path more so when a Sysop put it into the body of the text. I'm still relatively unsure of the netiquette in this forum. I'll ask the user direct and see if I get a reasonable response. Apologies if I have bothered you unecessarily. --Ianmc 21:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hello Ianmc - No bother at all. You are urged to 'be bold' with your editing. If people disagree with your corrections, they can always revert. I must admit that I thought the sentence was suspect - I was simply copyediting to put it into the right place. My edit said nothing about the correctness of the sentence. I'll delete this line shortly - if you haven't done so in the meantime. Ian Cairns 21:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Little Heath School

Hi. I kept the article, per the consensus. I then boldly merged and redirected it based on my own decision that it is better covered in Tilehurst. No consensus is needed for that, but you are free to revert my edits; I won't object in this case. I apologize, I should have made this process more clear, though the edit history does reflect it. CDC (talk) 22:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I'll go with the consensus if you don't mind and revert. Thanks, Ian Cairns 22:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)