User talk:Osiris/December 2012

Active discussions
Archive 13


I'm a bit concerned to see huge numbers of templates brought over by some non-too experienced users. I see we have 66 chembox templates! Surely this is way, way beyond the needs of this wiki? Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

If you are talking about what I think you are talking about, I too have been a bit concerned about it. I believe I saw Auntof6 also mention it. -DJSasso (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
It is getting a bit ridiculous. A lot of them seem unnecessary. I think it's slowed down, though (in mid-November, it was over 100 a day and many of them had no foreseeable use). I think he's stopped overwriting too, which is good. I will go through them all this weekend and do whatever needs to be done. I don't know what to suggest if it continues at a level that is unmanageable... Osiris (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
We could propose the set for deletion, with the exception of any which seem useful. There is no way our chemistry pages need them. The guiding idea should be: is there a need? The value of templates is often questionable. It's one thing having a template for the periodic table, it's quite another to have a separate one for each of hundreds of types of compounds or reactions! I'm no templates buff, but noticed this collection by accident. I wonder, too, whether we might have restrictions on imports for less experienced users... Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay, a list of template pages added in November is here. I'll go through them over the course of today. Is this the collection you're talking about? I haven't looked into how chembox works yet, but from a glance it looks like it uses a large number of ancillary templates (most of which haven't been created here yet). So all that would be needed is some changes to {{chembox}}, but I'll have to figure out whether it's possible. Osiris (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I just had no idea we had so many. Yes, the 66 chembox templates were the ones I noticed. Goodness, what a job! ~ rather you than me... Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


Could I have some help to change these words into simple English

Comet Group is an electrical retail chain trading in the United Kingdom, owned by OpCapita. The company sells consumer electronics and white goods along with related products and services, and pioneered the concept of the out-of-town discount warehouse in the UK.

Google9999 (talk) 12:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Google9999. I would suggest using short, simple sentences (one clause per sentence if you can), and start with the most important bit. An example,
Comet Group is a retail chain store that sells electronics. It trades in the United Kingdom, and is owned by OpCapita. The company sells consumer electronics, home appliances and related products and services. It was one of the earliest examples of a discount warehouse in the United Kingdom.
You might have to modify that for accuracy, but hopefully it helps you get a rough idea. Osiris (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


Osiris, I need some help. Both animal groups Vulpini and Vulpes are under the name of "fox". But only the Vulpini group is known as "fox" while the group Vulpes is known as "true fox". So, when you type in the name "Vulpini" you go to the "fox" article and when you type in the name "Vulpes" you also go to the "fox" article. So can you help me fix this? Marcus20 (talk) 03:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure, what do you need me to do? You can change Vulpes into an article about true foxes, would that fix it? Osiris (talk) 04:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks like this has been fixed now. You'll have to thank ‎Mukkakukaku for his efforts. Osiris (talk) 01:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I have to admit I took action on this without reading the above. The original status of the article was perfectly OK, and so I restored the material into a single page Fox, and added the material by Mukka. I've explained on my talk page that the Vulpini is almost entirely the genus Vulpes, and it makes no sense for us to set up a separate page with v. similar content. En wiki is obsessed with having an article at every single layer of the taxonomic ladder; but we do not need to follow their dafter ideas. Nor is "True fox" a term any normal person would use. Ordinary people just say "fox".
However, I must apologise to Mukka for doing this without reading this discussion. If I'd read this discussion I would have discussed it first, as a matter of courtesy. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Vulpini(fox) is a tribe, and inside Vulpini there are five genera: Vulpes (true fox), Cerdocyon (crab-eating fox), Dusicyon (Falkland Islands wolf), Otocyon (bat-eared fox), and Urocyon. So basically Vulpini is a separate group to Vulpes, so that is why we have to make to articles, one called 'Vulpini'(fox) and one called Vulpes(true fox). Marcus20 (talk) 12:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this would be better discussed on the article's talk page – where editors can discuss whether there's a need to have a separate article for each genus or whether it's better to combine them all into the tribe's article. I could be convinced either way. I'm not sure what Mukk's position on the matter is either. Let's centralise the discussion at Talk:Fox. Osiris (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Johnson Restaurant, San Francisco, Ca.‎

Greetings I noticed you added a talk header to the talk page of the above article that I had marked for Quick deletion. Since there is no corresponding article, I was wondering what the point was of keeping the talk page? Kumioko (talk) 03:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I didn't see that. I'll delete it. Thanks. Osiris (talk) 03:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
No worries, I'm still learning this place so I thought there might be some reason I didn't know about yet. Thanks. Kumioko (talk) 04:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Gheba tribe

Hallo dear Osiris, regarding the above Gheba tribe -- you did some reverting on this I believe?--I am concerned that someone is (probably in good faith but due to lack of understanding) adding and re-adding the same spurious material/cittaions from an unreliable source. I have left page discussions and reverted to another version trying to be as objective as possible but isnt there any list or something where we could inform people of 'unreliable/unacceptable sources'? Maybe that might help clarify things. Thanks Hamneto (talk) 04:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)Hamneto

Sounds good. My revert there was just a mistake that I made whilst looking for vandalism from yesterday (hit the wrong button). So I haven't looked at any problems it might have had. If it's wrong or not neutral, I trust your judgement on the matter completely. Osiris (talk) 04:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Dear Osiris, hallo again. Im v sorry to bother you with this but your advice needed again-- now regarding the same article mentioned above i.e. Gheba tribe ; we have a new user User:Gsksari who is himself a Gheba from Attock District of Punjab (Pakistan) and from what I could gather, so far, he made the above amendments which I amended further--and he did these in good faith as far as I can judge. I have had had quite some discussions with him, he seemed very angry and disturbed about something and he had some valid points to make regarding his tribe/clan. Essentially, what he wishes to say is this, that many of the so called 'Gheba' chiefs in his native area arent actually Ghebas at all but are of the Jodhra tribe or Alpials (all close kin from what I know) and he wishes to somehow clarify this, although the whole relationship web seems v complex to me-- too complex for this simple English Wikipedia. In my view, we have given enough history of the Ghebas as it is. But User:Gsksari wishes to add this information to the main English Wikipedia to the article but he seems to be denied this chance there, his additions are time and again deleted. Yet, rather than here, this information is definitely more suited there. What if any way could you suggest or advise, that could be of some help to him in getting his p o view across to the editors there on the main English Wiki, please? Do you suppose it might be helpful to ask the Admins there to assist him in some way. I really feel sorry for the gentleman. He has something vital to say, but cannot express himself properly and when he does say it in the proper forum/place, his words are deleted/removed almost at once. This sense of frustration has brought him here but sadly, this isnt the proper place for such complexities of debates about race and caste, since we are aiming at simplicity/clarity. Any help/guidance would be appreciated thanks Hamneto (talk) 12:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Hamneto
Well, his descriptions would probably continue to be deleted unless they are added with reliable sources. So the first question would be: Has he got any that state what he claims? If he does, and he can explain himself clearer in Punjabi, then I would suggest that he ask for help from Mar4d (talkchanges), on the English Wikipedia, who is fluent in Punjabi, Urdu and English. Perhaps the best option, alternatively, would be for him to write an article about it on the Punjabi Wikipedia, and then let other people translate it. Osiris (talk) 12:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I see that his contribution probably be deleted again on the English (main) Wikipedia but I shall ask him all the same to collect his proofs and contact Mar4d (talkchanges). The Punjabi Wikipedia option sounds good to me too! Thank again, for your helpHamneto (talk) 02:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)Hamneto

Flood flag

That would be good. I just looked up that flood flag and that seems like it would make sense thanks. Kumioko (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Greetings, You can remove the flood flag for now. I am done through F. I am going to scan through the next few letters before I begin again. Kumioko (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I've removed it for you. -Mh7kJ (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Great thanks you. Kumioko (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Mini Israel

i didn't know that is in Palestine. tell me about it. פארוק (talk) 07:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

What would you like to categorise it under? We don't have a category for "No Man's Land", so I would recommend both. Osiris (talk) 07:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to talk about politics. but did israel is "No Man's Land ?". also this place is not in the Palestinian Authority, but in Israel. if you don't agreey whit me i exponent that. פארוק (talk) 07:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think I've understood you. The coordinates you've given for the article geolocate to a place within the Green Line's "no man's land" zone. The address label for the coordinates is "Mini Israel, 424, Mate Yehuda Regional Council, West Bank, Jerusalem District, Palestinian National Authority". But Israel's Independent Media Review & Analysis states that it's not in Palestinian territory, but rather inside the Green Line's "no man's land". For our purposes, it should be classified as being in both. Osiris (talk) 08:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I think you are mistake. this place is not in the Green line of the Palestinian areas. this place is belong to israel - near Modi'in, in the the israeli Yehuda Regional Council. this is not 1967 area. פארוק (talk) 08:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps I am then. Could you please show me where exactly it is on a map? Google and our own Geohack tools seem to indicate that it is inside the "No Man's Land" zone. Osiris (talk) 08:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I promised to bring you a link. maybe are right, although I been this place and i know it inside Israel. פארוק (talk) 09:39, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay, no need to hurry, but that would be good. Thanks, Faroukh. Osiris (talk) 09:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


why Jerusalem is not in Israel ?.......... East Jerusalem is steel in israel. "is this wikipedia did not recognize israel ?". and why you deleted the catagoy page......פארוק (talk) 10:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you really want to have that debate on this wiki as well, Faroukh? I would have thought that your dealings on the English Wikipedia had helped you understand that Wikipedia doesn't take sides on disputes. This "wikipedia" is no different from any other wikipedia on that matter. The policy on all versions of Wikipedia is to maintain a neutral point-of-view, and reflect all significant viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. There is only one country in the world that considers East Jerusalem part of Israel. There are countless resolutions on this matter at all levels of foreign affairs (including one very significant one less than two weeks ago). You'll notice that I haven't claimed anything about something not being in Israel; I've just recategorised the pages to say they're in Jerusalem. When there are more articles to go in that category, we can then either split it into West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem or categorise the Jerusalem category into both countries. Osiris (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
stell, there is no Palestinian state, so i don't understand what is the rush to write "West Jerusalem" (although the Green Line still not returned to the 1967 borders) to mention the word "Israel", or maybe everything here is conducted by political motives. and why you deleted the page that I created about mountains in Israel ?.......there is only "Palestinian Authority" which controls the Gaza Strip and a few areas in Judea and Samaria, "thats all", but not Jerusalem. פארוק (talk) 10:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Not important. All I care about is what is written in reliable sources that describe the subject. Whether there is some other state or not does not affect the overwhelming international consensus on what is Israeli territory. Our policy is to reflect the situation proportionately. Osiris (talk) 11:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
If it is not interesting. so why did you ask me if "Mini Israel" is in Israel or in the Palestinian authority ?. פארוק (talk) 11:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I think you have misunderstood me. I said that it is not important whether "there is no Palestinian state" or whether "the Green Line still not returned to the 1967 borders". That has no bearing on or relevance to our policies. I did not ask you where Mini Israel is. You told me that it was in Israel, I then showed you maps and sources stating otherwise, and you said you would find me a link to show exactly where it is in relation to the border. I don't mind waiting for that. But these locations I know to be in Jerusalem. You described them as being in Jerusalem. You are aware that Jerusalem is a disputed territory and that East Jerusalem is considered occupied territory (not part of Israel) by most reliable sources. I am also confident that you are aware of our policies on neutrality. Osiris (talk) 11:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, fine. I did not come here to be argued, i just want to write the truth as it. פארוק (talk) 12:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

JB Priestley

JB Priestley is not actually called John Boynton Priestley. I was with him on his deathbed where he signed a document legally changing his name to John Bellend Priestley. However his wife burned the document as she did not think it was appropriate. Just thought I'd let you know. --Sandeep 11:10, 12 December 2012‎


Hi Osiris, can you please look at Pasquale J. D'Amuro? Is a copy of an article of myself on another Wikipedia also valid for a quick deletion under Q3? Bermond (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I beat the article with a Simple stick so it should have no issues getting past the QD. I also replied on its talk page about the issue of copyright/attribution vs transwiki'd simplifying which seems to be clouding this issue a bit. --Creol(talk) 19:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I saw it yesterday when I went through NewPages and thought it was passable. Writing articles in Simple English will take a bit of practice, so if you're worried about it happening again just have a look through the changes that Creol and others make and you'll be able to pick up tips. There's no copyright issue as long as you're the sole author of the content. Osiris (talk) 07:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both for your help. Bermond (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Proper references

Hey, Osiris. I will certainly include references for these types of subjects from now on. Thanks for informing me. September 1988 (talk) 06:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


Hi, I created this category and I never create an empty one (I have quite some experience with categories at en:WP, but am still learning the "tricks" here). It contained Richard Tsien, who was categorized as "neurologist", but as he is not a physician, that is incorrect. Can you tell me if there is any reason that "neuroscientists" would not be a good category here? It could certainly be populated, there are many entries in the equivalent en:WP cat. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 09:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Randykitty. Sorry for the inconvenience. Our local policy is that categories should contain at least three items in order to remain. Any with less than that are considered "empty". I've restored it and filled it appropriately by looking at the contents of the English Wikipedia version. Osiris (talk) 10:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I see, thanks for the explanation! I'll take care next time I create a cat to include at least that minimum of three :-) --Randykitty (talk) 11:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: Patroller

Hi and thanks! I was actually looking for a help page that gave standard section names and article format before I started writing new articles but I couldn't find one, is there one around? Cheers, --Mark91it's my world 10:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

That was exactly what I was looking for, albeit a bit hidden at the end of MOS so that's why I didn't find it the first time. Thanks! --Mark91it's my world 10:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: Enhanced interwikis

Hello, Osiris. You have new messages at Chenzw's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Melly Oitzl

Hi, I just created this article, based on the one that I had created earlier on the English WP. I have tried to make it simples, but find that rather difficult in an article on a scientist... Perhaps you could have a look and give me some advice? Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Randykitty. It looks pretty simple, actually. If you just wanted some general tips, then I usually suggest keeping the sentences short and singular where you can (avoid complex compound sentences). There's certainly no way you can simplify the science terms, but the regular verbs and such you can usually get simpler synonyms work (like "received"/"obtained" → "was given"/"got"). Using links on the scientific terms is the best way of ensuring the reader knows what they mean. What you did with cognitive neurobiology (explaining it in parentheses) is also a great method, as long as it doesn't interrupt the flow. Off the topic of writing style for a moment, I do have to say that you've done a great job with referencing! Osiris (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words and for the advice. I have simplified the text a bit more now, I think. As for the referencing: on the English WP I got into the habit of providing sources for whatever I say, as you'll get challenged rapidly if you put in unsourced stuff (as it should be, I think). The article still has a number of redlinks, when I have some time I'll try to create articles for them. --Randykitty (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, good luck with cognitive neurobiology! That'll be a challenge... Osiris (talk) 21:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Osiris/December 2012".