User talk:Jdforrester/Old Archive 6

This is an archive of my talk page, the current version of which is located here.

Note that I am likely to reformat, delete, or otherwise alter what appears here...

This is only a generic IP

I didn't vandalize yr page, i dont even know what Tribalwars is about or the page even existed until u wrote something in my page. This IP is a public IP at a restaurant anyway, anyone who comes into the restuarant would have a chance of getting this IP. Cheers. =)

Emptyness, stretching on forever

Gosh. Nothing here yet. Maybe I shouldn't clean out so much at once? ;-)

Whohoa first post! Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 22:39, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
How about deleting this? Brookie 21:59, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Naming of Peer's heirs et al.

elements cross-posted

Heya, I've noted that you've been adding heirs apparent to a number of our article on Earldoms and the like, but that you've been giving people titles that they don't (yet) legally have (not until their father dies); Wikipedia convention is that we don't preemptive entitle people, so "John Stewart Sholto Douglas, Lord Aberdour" is located thusly until he does in fact become the 22nd Earl of Morton.

Thanks,

James F. (talk) 15:49, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hallo, nice to have some one to talk to. Thank you for pointing this out to me. I haven't known that before. If you find such an entry, please make sure that it follows this rule. I will change what I still know that I added such an entry there. Yours,
V_M_1974 (talk) 17:35, 19 Mar 2005 (MET)
No problem. Happy editing.
James F. (talk) 18:36, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikimedia Quarto: Retrospective

Hi

I did not know you qualified !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_%28miscellaneous%29#Retrospective

Anthere

I'm pretty sure that I don't qualify for it under this account, and I've forgotten/lost the other one (though that probably qualifies). Never mind, though. :-)
James F. (talk) 12:03, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Houses and gardens categories

Thank you so much for voting against my proposal to delete some tiny categories which I created myself. I only did a couple out of nearly fifty counties, I'm not going to do the rest, and I don't suppose any third party will for ages and ages, if ever at all. This will leave an inconsistency, and is no incentive for me to continue my major efforts to categorise the UK county and city menus. It creates an anomaly in category:historic houses in England the Bedfordshire etc houses can't properly be put in the main list. I am the most industrious categoriser of UK articles and usually an advocate of small categories, but I think that this time I went too far. Could you please either:
1) Do all the other 45 counties yourself in the near future.
2) Reconsider your vote.
Thank you. Wincoote 02:51, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are aware that tree traversal display of categories is a feature that we're likely to get quite soon, aren't you? That means that items in subcategory bar of foo will display in foo. E.g.:
Category:Historic houses in England
This category is for historic houses in England of any type or size, including country houses, other architecturally significant houses, and houses associated with notable people.
Articles in category "Historic houses in England"
via Historic houses in Bedfordshire
L
Luton Hoo
W
Woburn Abbey
via Historic houses in Buckinghamshire
A
Ascott, Buckinghamshire
Aston Clinton House
B
Boarstall
...
via Historic houses in London
via Historic houses in Islington
via Historic houses in Kensington and Chelsea
....
via Historic houses in Norfolk
....
Historic houses in England
1
12 Arnold Grove
2
20 Forthlin Road
251 Menlove Avenue
7
78 Derngate
A
Aldermaston Court
Alford Manor House
Alfriston Clergy House
Allerton Hall
Alnwick Castle
... etc.
Will this alleviate your concerns?
James F. (talk) 12:10, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Only if
      • a)Someone allocates all the country house and garden articles by county for consistency, and I don't thing anyone is going to take that on any time soon unless you do it yourself.
      • b)All the articles will display in alphabetical order, which isn't the case in your example. Otherwise you still have to know which county a house is in to find it at a glance. I know the location of just about every historic house in England which is open to the public and of many that aren't, but the average Wikipedia visitor doesn't.
    • Can you please let me reverse this? No one else has objected to doing so. As I say, I am a advocate of precise categorisation, but here I am just saying that I made a mistake, and that a project which was entirely reliant on me for implementation for now and for who knows how long is cancelled. I want to remove the inconsistency I have created. If you allow me to do that, I will then get on with creating all the county by county visitor attraction categories, and indeed other county by county and city by city categories. I have already worked on category:West Midlands, category:Greater Manchester and several others, but I want to clear this up before I continue. Wincoote 01:04, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Let me get this right - you think that, rather than categorising the buildings as historic buildings in a particular location, we should instead just dump them all into one vast monolithic category, and also put each article individually into its relevent county/city category? Doesn't this strike you as, well, err, a rather seriously anti-normalised categorisation structure?
And, as for your corcern that people don't care what county the places are in, I would argue quite the reverse - "I'm in Warwickshire for the next week - are there any historic buildings in the county?" is likely to be a rather more common query, IMO, that "I want to see an historic building starting with "Abc..." - now, what county would I have to go to see such places?". Quite apart from anything else, categorisation is just that - meta-data, and is not really intended to be for user navigation - for that, we have templates, both set-type like Template:Europe and succession-type like Template:PeerNavbox.
James F. (talk) 01:58, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You totally misunderstand me. Of course I care what county things are in. That is why I want to categorise county menus. I have done more of this than anyone else.
As for the navigation issue, I think you are taking an unduly technical approach. I don't know what meta-data is and I sure that puts me in a large majority in the general public. Of course people use the categories for navigation. I can't comprehend why anyone would doubt that.
I have thought this through. Most of the county visitor atractions sections will be in low single figures. It would be silly to have all the same sub-categories at county level as we have at national level (probably over a hundred). More to the point, no one has implemented this and I don't think anyone is going to. I'm certainly not, but I am making an offer to categorise all the county menus at a level which organises all of each county's articles into reasonably sized groups, while also leaving them in more specialist national groups. This is surely a pragmatic appoach. I am offering to put all of each county's visitor attractions into an easy to use category. People who are in a county might be interested in more than one type, and they are hardly going to be overwhelmed by a menu like category:visitor attractions in Leicestershire.
As for the national menu, we should remember that Wikipedia is not a travel guide, but a reference and learning resource. The primary use of the counttry house menu should be to enable people to become better informed on the subject, not to plan a daytrip. This is more likely to happen if they can freely and quickly choose between articles on houses which they have heard of (which are likely to be the better articles on average).
I beg you to withdraw your vote. You remain the only objector. As I have said, this was a project that I started, and which no one else has collaborated with, and I now think it was a mistake. All I am asking it to be allowed to cancel out an error which I believe I made so I can do something better instead. Please, please cooperate. Wincoote 14:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


More schools on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion

As of March 25, 2005, there are an additional (6) articles listed for deletion under the POV notion that schools are non-notable (even though this is invalid reasoning as per the Wikipedia deletion policy). Please be aware that the following schools are actively being discussed and voted upon:

In response to this cyclical ordeal, a Schoolwatch programme has been initiated in order to indentify school-related articles which may need improvement and to help foster and encourage continued organic growth. Your comments are welcome and I thank you again for your time. --GRider\talk

GSM exchange for meetup tomorrow

Hi, I've sent you my GSM number as a memo over IRC. To access it, type "/memoserv read last" (you more than likely know this already). If you could SMS me yours in exchange, that would be very useful, as I'm liable to get lost somewhere between Victoria coach station (London) and | The Cock. nsh 22:34, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Whoops. Only saw this just now.
James F. (talk) 04:11, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK portal

I'm not at all sure where to post this, but I read here that you were involved in the making of the Wikimedia UK portal. I saw that it includes six languages at the moment; how about adding the Simple English Wikipedia to the mix – possibly a blurb in the English section. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs, blog) 21:49, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

UK CotW: Licensing laws of the United Kingdom

Hiya, just to let you know that the article you nominated for UK Collaboration of the Week has been made the nomination. The scope is now the entire United Kingdom (from just England and Wales). I've created a stub but your contributions are of course welcome! The article is at Licensing laws of the United Kingdom, the nomination is at Wikipedia:UK Wikipedians' notice board/UKCOTW/Licensing laws of the United Kingdom. Talrias | talk 17:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are you thinking what I'm thinking?

That the guy on the left is....
ed g2s • talk 01:38, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Umm. Is that Anthony?
Gosh.
James F. (talk) 10:45, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zürich to Zurich

Zürich has been nominated on Wikipedia:Requested moves for a page move to Zurich. Perhapse you might like to express your opinion about this proposed move on talk:Zürich. Philip Baird Shearer 10:21, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Akiepas12

Thanks for stepping in to the Seven Wonders of the World situation. However, I think that Akiepas12 was a newbie who was actually trying to fight vandalism. They were a little clumsy about it, but I think the page blanking was probably an honest mistake. Looking over their edits to the page, one was a straightforward reversion of vandalism, one was a normal (but badly-written) edit and several were trying to put a (slightly misguided) warning at the top of the page. I personally don't think they need to be blocked. I can certainly understand how you might take the page-blanking as vandalism, though. FreplySpang (talk) 21:09, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II

Good edit. I'm amazed though that the page has grown to 87K!!! The maximum is supposed to be 32! Is there no end to the impact that pope had? Biggest queues in history. Biggest funeral in history. And now well on the way to the biggest wikipedia article in history!!! FearÉIREANN 01:38, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Succession boxes

Okay, I got both of your messages, and it seems you are contradicting yourself. What is the appropriate style for succession boxes for peerages and kingdoms? Is it not informative to give the years as well? --timc | Talk 01:41, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. I asked the question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Peerage#Years_of_peerages. --timc | Talk 14:00, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dragonology

The summary of your edit to Dragonology states you may put the article up on VfD. I would suggest you do not. Dragonology is one of several terms for the study of Dragons. I put the article on my watchlist when it was created, and intend to expand it if no-one else does so in the near future.

Thanks, Daniel Lawrence 09:48, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bot

The edit that your bot made to my user page was not very substantial and was hardly worth reverting. In fact, I consider it an improvement and have replaced two links in response to its edit. If you feel strongly that it should not edit user pages, can't it be instructed not to? Tim Ivorson 17:29, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I made it myself (the bot is human driven, requiring input as to what to do for each and every page), and then decided that I shouldn't have made such an edit to a user's page. I run it in two passes, on over just the article space (where I change every reference), and one over the rest of them, where I often manual edit instead. Sorry.
James F. (talk) 17:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Okay. Tim Ivorson 07:41, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oops

I haven't read the Wikipedia Manual of Style for three months. Thanks for pointing that point out (regarding current quotation marks policy).

Just for the record, I disagree with the policy change. But I will raise that point on the appropriate talk page.

--Coolcaesar 23:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem was that the policy had been changed on December 28, 2004 (to a different compromise policy where people should just use whatever their local style is), but was put back (to the previous compromise) just a couple of weeks ago. I preferred the quotation marks policy the way it was when I first read it (in February 2005) and have expressed my opinion accordingly on the talk page for the MoS.

--Coolcaesar 00:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Defend your honour!

...which I've appropriated for the Keep side in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Alison Wheeler. :) Samaritan 16:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Countess of Windermere

Hello James, I see you've encountered our mutual friend. I don't know if he's a vandal or just deluded, but I guess we'll just watch out for that IP range. Be advised, he seems to have also edited as 67.9.102.46. Best, Mackensen (talk) 20:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Order of succession to the British throne

As of your edit in peerage, I have to say that the succession to the British crown is NOT agnatic. Agnatic means exclusively male, thus females would be excluded if the succession be agnatic = Salic Law. However, the British crown has been cognatically inheritable from the mists of Middle Ages. There had been Empress Maud, Henry VIII's mother, his daughters, etc. Elizabeth II is not a product of agnatic succession. If we want to be precise, we would say that succession to the British throne is male-preference cognatic primogeniture. 62.78.120.237 19:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is your conjecture, stated on many different pages.
That does not mean I agree with you.
James F. (talk) 23:38, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bot request

Well, since the bots page is a redir, I'll put it here: There must be still a few redirs left from a bot run a while ago, and they are impossible to find via "What links" here. That would be first of all [[sex|gender]] , but quite likely there are also a few [[gender identity|gender]] and [[gender role|gender]] left. I'd really, really appreciate if those were corrected some day, and I have no clue about bots myself. -- AlexR 16:51, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be dim, but what exactly do you want me to do - replace [[sex|gender]] by [[gender]] , by [[sex]] , or a combination of the two, or neither?
James F. (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - the original bot run pointed away from gender because it was a disambig. Since it has been an article for a while, all gender should plainly point to gender. -- AlexR 17:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

U.S.

Just seen your bot changing [[U.S.]] -> [[United States|U.S.]] -- is there a reason to do this? — Matt Crypto 18:54, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect by-passing. It helps avoid double redirects and speed up the servers, as well as looks better to end-users.
James F. (talk) 22:25, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK. My concern is that it complicates the Wikicode. One advantage to redirects is that you can avoid the messy piped syntax in links. I've always thought it a sufficient advantage that we should avoid bypassing redirects, and only pipe links to avoid disambiguation pages. — Matt Crypto 23:54, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

patroled

Halló James! Thanks for the link. Please see bugzilla:2045. Best regards Gangleri | Th | T 01:09, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

Bot-assisted rename for 2003 Invasion of Iraq

2003 Invasion of Iraq is going to be renamed in the near future, if at least to decapitalise "invasion". Since there are numerous redirects (and possibly doube-redirects after recent move debacles) it would be very helpful to have the post-move cleanup bot-assisted. It's not going to be done quite yet, but would you be able to sort it out in the near future if I let you know the change? Cheers, violet/riga (t) 14:08, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would be no problem at all.
James F. (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I came by to let you know about our own little Iraq war (about the article title). The bot just made this edit inserting a link to the article at its current title, but, as Violet/riga says, that name may well change. I suggest the bot be called off from this particular link until the situaton stabilizes. JamesMLane 18:45, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know. I'm having it remove all redirected links so that the bot isn't needed absolutely immediately, as I'm likely not to be online at the perfect moment, whenever that is, because there will be created no double-redirects that actually stop pages from working. Violet said that it seemed a good idea.
James F. (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk: Ministry of Defence (United Kingdom)

People don't seem to be understanding the primary topic disambiguation argument. Jooler

GLB vs GLBT

elements cross-posted

Please do not add the gay, lesbian and bisexual category to transpeople who do not identify as such, for example, Georgina Beyer and Kamikawa Aya. GLB does not include the T. Thanks Dysprosia 22:42, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was just repopulating the category, as per the CfD; if the information is wrong...
James F. (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? I don't quite understand. I'm saying that applying the GLB cat is wrong. Dysprosia 23:24, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "applying" it, just making it more obvious that it already has been applied - I'm having my bot do the boring maintenance task of reparenting articles assigned to the LGBT sub-categories up to the main one. Specifically, all of the articles in:
  • Category:LGBT actors
  • Category:LGBT artists
  • Category:LGBT athletes
  • Category:LGBT musicians
  • Category:LGBT politicians
... are being moved to the common parent category of all of these, which is Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people.
As you have noted, and I had already spotted, the LGBT super-cat does not infact mention the "T" part of this, so it will have to be moved. Do you wish to do the honours, or should I?
James F. (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one with the bot ;) Dysprosia
P.S.: Have now put in the CfD.
James F. (talk) 23:37, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Groovy. Dysprosia 06:01, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the same depopulation, I see that in this case- [Category:LGBT actors|Cho, Margaret], Cho no longer has an "actor" category. How are you handling these types of occupational categories? Thanks - Willmcw 03:41, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Bugger. That will have to be fixed.
*sighs*
James F. (talk) 09:31, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the categories being removed from GLBT people? Where was the discussion on this? Please STOP until this is clarified. Jonathunder 05:21, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

All done now (and, indeed, by three hours before your request), so, yes, I've stopped. See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 April 24#LGBT_subcategories.
James F. (talk) 09:31, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am appalled that this happened. I hope it can be easily undone. You have destroyed a good deal of my and others work. I did not know it was being discussed until after it happened. Isn't it obvious that this was going to be controversial, and there should have been outreach to the people that did all the original categorization? The only way we'd notice is if we were closely watching the CfD or if we had done some work to the actual category pages. Since I didn't set up the categories, and only worked to put articles into the categories, I only noticed after your robot deleted everything. I am extremely upset that this happened and even more upset that it COULD happen in Wikipedia. -- Samuel Wantman 08:45, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it greatly unfortunate that the decision went the way it did (I personally disagreed with it). I merely provided the tool when someone pointed it out to me. And yes, it can be reversed relatively easily with the bot (but it should be noted, this would under current policy warrant immediate deletion of the categories - they've already been listed for deletion and confirmed, and there doesn't seem to be a place for undeletion motions for categories, so I wouldn't know what to do...).
On the more substantive point, I think that editors should be more comprehensively warned about possible deletions outside of the article namespace, and that possibly the discussion time should be extended, perhaps to a fortnight. However, the place for such a discussion is on the talk page for CfD, not here.
James F. (talk) 15:53, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I took your advice, and created a new policy for an undeletion motion on the CfD talk page. -- Samuel Wantman 19:27, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Voting

elements cross-posted

I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but I suspect that you've been misled I'm afraid. I have no new, deep, or interesting ideas about voting. On the Talk page of a very controversial article (Teach the Controversy), someone proposed that the article be merged with another, and asked people to vote. Kim Bruning (who has strong views in this area) popped up and declared that voting isn't permitted on Wikipedia. A number of editors believed this, despite the discussion that followed, and a VfD was opened. Kim Bruning then popped up on the VfD, questioning the integrity of the initiator, and arguing that VfDs shouldn't be used for debates about content and the merging of articles. The resultant confusion and mess subverted the whole process of trying to reach consensus, or at least a decision.

I have argued – on the original Talk page, on the VfD, and at the Administrators' noticeboard – that Kim Bruning acted badly, and that this sort of behaviour should be avoided in future. It is simply and straightforwardly false that voting isn't permitted; as the sole means of making a decision it's (rightly) deprecated, even strongly deprecated, in most contexts, and should be used only when a dispute is long-running and intractable — but that's a very different matter from saying that it's forbidden.

So you see, although I'm perfectly happy to help in any way I can with things like voting policy, I don't really have anything exciting to say about it (unless you think that I'm wrong, and that voting is simply forbidden — in which case it's true that I've badly misunderstood all the documents that I've read). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:43, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you are indeed labouring under a misapprehension - 'voting', in as much as undertaking binding votes, is fundamentally anti-wiki and anti-policy, whereas 'polling', conducting straw-polls which are not binding is often a generally good way to gauge what different parties feel or believe, and help people establish consensus. This is a very widely-held policy (note the distinction, please, between actual policy and policy-as-it-was-written-down), and is what Kim was saying (and quite rightly).
What I'm interesting in is which documents, policy or otherwise, you read and got the wrong impression from, because I (or someone else) evidently needs to update them to aid people in their understanding of policy.
James F. (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to depend upon a very strict distinction between votes and polls, which is clearly a Wikipedia technical usage, as it's not the normal English usage. If anything needs changing, then it's that I suppose. I thought that it was clear from what I said above that I understand that binding votes, in which tallying votes cast is all that counts, are at best deprecated. Mind you, I'm still unsure where it is in the Wikipedia documents that policy is clearly stated that voting (in this technical sense) is not permitted. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:05, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed, there are quite a number of terms of art associated with Wikipedia and the various community processes we have; their use, though perhaps slightly unhelpful for clarity to newbies, massively increases clarity and - almost as important - brevity for those who have made it over the learning curve.
Thanks to the issues raised from this this episode, as a first step I updated Wikipedia:Survey guidelines ([1]) to make this clearer, but would greatly appreciate your thoughts on further modifications necessary.
James F. (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My main reservation is that there are certain areas – mainly involving religion and politics, unsurprisingly – where consensus is impossible, because one (or both) side refuses to give way (the Teach the Controversy article was a good example). In such cases, a majority vote is, though hugely undesirable, the only way forward. It would be a mistake, I think, to rule them out altogether (unless an alternative can be found; I can't think of one); the result would be that, if consensus couldn't be reached on the content of an article, the only formal approach would be a VfD...

I'm also still worried about the terminology issue. Granted that there's a need for technical usage, admins should be especially careful to make clear what that usage is (perhaps there should be a page of technical terms, to which easy reference could be made). It's all too easy, as happened in the case which provoked all this, to use a technical term which will be understood by most editors according to its normal acceptation.

This is all off the top of my head (I have a pile of essays and Collections to mark, so I can't give it the attention it deserves). If I think of anything else, I'll get back to you. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:13, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jd.... you're making a mistake with RDSmith4...

There's a very good chance that this guy is the "impersonator vandal." This vandal has already impersonated quite a few users, including myself. Clockwork was impersonated by this guy as well. Furthermore, this user has made multiple changes to the Muhammad article, and upon his last change said that he was an administrator and if his changes were reverted again, he would implement a block. This user is not an imitator. My advice is to block this user posthaste. This vandal is the reason why a new template was created recently. --Chanting Fox 00:39, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to take my share of the flak, but thanks for the warning.
James F. (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling Error.

Sorry to be an ass (Oh, and hi, I'm a friend of Viki's), but you've misspelt "beginning" on your user page. --Mike C | talk 19:00, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the famous Mike? Yes, thanks. You know, you can edit it. :-)
James F. (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but I wanted an excuse to say hi. --Mike C | talk 08:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Hi". :-)
James F. (talk) 10:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with Category:Reptile and amphibian stubs

Firstly, thanks for moving Category:Reptile stubs to Category:Reptile and amphibian stubs. There does seem to be a problem with it, though, namely that it isn't sorting alphabetically. Instead of a list in alphabetical order, broken up by initials, there's just a massive hotchpotch of herpets in no particular order. Do you have any idea why this is happening? Is there anything anyone can do about it? --Stemonitis 08:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've fixed it now. Thanks again. --Stemonitis 10:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I made rather a mistake. Whoops. :-)
James F. (talk) 10:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]