User talk:Aranae/Archive4

This is an archive for my user talk page. It contains all discussion from my fourth year as an editor. For current messages, see User talk:Aranae.

Mind if I change reference style for Allegheny woodrat?

Hi, I'd like to add a bit of information to this article, which I'll source. With a second source, I think individual footnotes would work better and help readers more. Since you put the original "References" section in the article, would you mind if I changed it? (I'm asking because Wikipedia discourages changing footnote styles without consensus.)Noroton (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally vastly prefer (author, date) format to footnotes for a host of reasons, not least is that the complexity of coding footnotes discourages both editing and citing sources. Nevertheless, this one reference is simply a general taxonomy reference. I would encourage anyone who is actually going to work on the article to see that as the point where the decision on reference style is made. I guess that was vague. Summary: I am happy to support you either way. --Aranae (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! Noroton (talk) 01:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:87.10.221.119 edits to Results of the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries

The above user's four edits were made without source citation; the table references CNN, whose numbers haven't changed. Are you an admin? Your tools might make it easier for you to revert those four edits. Wdfarmer (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I'm not an admin. I think the best approach is to just fix them manually. It would be nice if we could use a source that takes it out to two decimal places. Politico.com is the only examples I know, but they still don't have the results from Windsor township. I suppose for now, the best source might be the New York Times since they use one decimal place. Nevertheless, I don't know if Obama's score averages to 36% or 37% once all factors are included. Is it 36.45 rounding to 36.5 or is it 36.51? --Aranae (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a moot point now; those New Hampshire results have been replaced by a more complete table from the "Concord Monitor". Thanks. Wdfarmer (talk) 03:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Human-baiting

For your information:

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Human-baiting_(2nd_nomination) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.8.246 (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deomyinae

Thank you for the edit at Deomyinae; I had not thought of interpreting "appropriate" as "more in line with the ICZN". The current formulation is definitely better. Ucucha 14:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woodland jumping mouse

Just curious as to why you removed the image... Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The picture was of a white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus) and not a woodland jumping mouse (Napaeozapus insignis). --Aranae (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drat...I was dumb when I uploaded this image from here: http://www.nps.gov/archive/acad/flow/mammals.html

I thought it just had a strange title, as many animal and plant images often have an old name of the species. Thanks for noticing! Bob the Wikipedian (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Field Vole

If you take a look at ITIS entry, Microtus agrestis does not have subgenus. I cannot confirm your reference unless I have the book with me, which I don't, so I deem the government department's internet data as correct. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mammal Species of the World vol 3 is pretty much the industry standard regarding taxonomy. It has just been placed online. ITIS is about a decade behind and isn't as good of a reference. Also, the ITIS entry doesn't even contradict MSW3 regarding subgenus, it just excludes that detail. To be honest, I'm not sure what the debate is. A valid reference provided additional information that was not mentioned (but not contradicted) in another reference. --Aranae (talk) 01:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myodini

I know it was a while ago, but can you remember why you redirected Clethrionomyini to Myodini? I'm clearing up redlinks and wanted to create an article on the fossil species in that genus; should i just change the redirect to a proper page or is there a reason why it's there?

Check out Myodes. It has recently been realized that Myodes has seniority over Clethrionomys. As such Clethrionomyini is no longer valid either. Taxa assigned there in older texts are in Myodini. --Aranae (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

for correcting all my little style errors/spelling mistakes :). Ironho lds 23:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For tirelessly cleaning up all my spelling and style errors in the fauna articles i'm working on. Ironho lds 02:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! But more kudos belong to you for making the articles in the first place. --Aranae (talk) 02:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :). My objective is to clear up all the missing articles in the Cricetidae family; i've already finished Arvicolinae and i'd started Sigmodontinae ages ago, so i'm just finishing that up. Ironho lds 02:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

quick question

Lists of fauna (say species list on a genus page) should go:

species common name (insert binomial here)

right? Ironho lds 13:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a formal format for this, but what you write here is my preferred usage. Some pages also list a summary of the geographic distribution also. --Aranae (talk) 21:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I think i'll put a proposal together for a proper layout on the wikiproject talk page (if that's the right place). You need to have it standardised, i've seen a dozen different styles on display. Think that'd be helpful? Ironho lds 22:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find it now, but I know there was a discussion on this and the consensus was that there is no consensus. If you do start a discussion, I recommend doing it at the subproject (WP:MAM) and not across the Tree of Life project as you are certain to not get consensus there. --Aranae (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, thanks!Ironho lds 23:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should i put it on the project talkpage or simply create my own proposal page? Ironho lds 23:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would think project talk page. --Aranae (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks. I'm thinking a quick proposal there based simply on creating standards for genus pages, with an invite to comment. If that raises enough interest i'll include any comments/suggestions and introduce it as proposed policy. I'll drop you a line when i've left the talkpage proposal, although it'll probably be fairly obvious. Ironho lds 09:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, proposal created. If you'd like to comment it would be greatly appreciated :). Ironho lds 19:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oryzomys common names

I'm asking your advice on an issue I am currently encountering: MSW 3 has common names on "Oryzomys" for all species then placed in Oryzomys, but such names would be inappropriate for species no longer placed in Oryzomys. What do you think I should do? I am thinking about just changing "Oryzomys" into "Rice Rat", or alternatively I could use the Red List's common names, or perhaps there is some even better solutions (like skipping common names entirely, but I don't think that's going to be accepted). Ucucha 17:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And do you think Template:Oryzomyini nav would be an acceptable template? (With the species filled in, of course.) I had to use Weksler's Clades A, B, C, and D (all moderately well-supported) beause the template will not take more than 20 groups and Oryzomyini now has well over 20 genera. Those clades have, as far as I know, not been used in any further publications, though, so I am a bit reluctant to introduce them here. Ucucha 18:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the template for two major reasons. First, the clades are not well-supported in the paper and may very easily not be valid. Second, they are only used in this one paper. The usage advantages for anyone is strictly limited to those who have the article sitting in front of them. Discussion of the clades is worthwhile in the text, but it doesn't belong on a simple navigational tool where it cannot be discussed/explained. --Aranae (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I also thought about these objections, and I actually agree now. However, I do think the navigational template would be useful; I've now found a method to include all genera without resorting to subgroups. Ucucha 19:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally can't stand the adoption of genus names as common names. You will only get support from me if you choose to drop the approach that Musser and Carleton (2005) and go back to using normal English common names. My objections to this approach are manyfold:

Genus names are subject to change. As you point out, what happens to the common name when the genus name changes?
Common names are supposed to be accessible to the broader public. These just make the public's eyes glaze over.
What are the rules for declining these nouns? Is the plural for Allen's Hylomyscus, Allen's Hylomysci or Allen's Hylomyscuses?
What are the rules for capitalisation? If you are referring to a generic group of rice rats, is it Oryzomyses or oryzomyses (or something else based on how it declines in Latin)?
I thnk it introduces a ridiculous amount of confusion as to whether you are referring to the genus name or common name of a group since they have become the same. How does one even go about correcting another's work as to rules of italics if one can't identify what usage is meant? --Aranae (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are many possible objections to their approach. However, there are also arguments in favour, such as the fact that it may be considered incorrect to call oryzomyines "rats", since they are not really related to "true" rats (Rattus). But, as you say, the solution is more awkward than the problem.

So which common names should be used? "Rice rat" is not ideal either, since (as far as I know) Oryzomys palustris is the only species ever found in a rice field. Ucucha 19:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think one should pick among the avaiable common names. In this case, IUCN applies "rice rat" to the animals. I'm not too worried about "rat", because any vaguely rat shaped rodent gets called a rat (cane rats, spiny rats, etc.). In general, though, my opinion is that common names are not meant to be accurate. Slow-worms are not worms. Elephant shrews and otter shrews are not shrews. Not even scientific names are accurate. Microtus pinetorum is pretty much exclusive to deciduous forest and is never found in association with pines. Unless the scientific community takes an approach of renaming everything every time something new is discovered about them, these inaccuracies are with us to stay. I think stability is more important than accuracy of description. --Aranae (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, stability is not (yet) achievable for more poorly-known mammals such as oryzomyines. They are now getting different common names in almost every list, which is, in fact, quite understandable: they are mostly only of interest to specialists, who use their scientific names all of the time, and since there are no really stable common names (as there are for felids and the like), compilers of lists have no real incentive to leave the names unchanged either. After all, if stability is almost non-existent, accuracy may become a more major concern. That's why I think scientific names should be used for most mammals.

However, I have actually added common names to Template:Oryzomyini nav, since my proposal to use scientific names is unlikely to be successful. I basically used Musser and Carleton's names, but changed every occurrence of "Oryzomys" into "Rice Rat" (it was used for all species then placed in Oryzomys and for Pseudoryzomys simplex). For Melanomys (common names also "Melanomys"), I also used "Rice Rat". For Neacomys, Nectomys, Oecomys, Scolomys, Sigmodontomys and Zygodontomys I used common names derived from the IUCN instead of Musser and Carleton's genus name-derived names: Bristly Mouse, Water Rat, Arboreal Rice Rat, Spiny Mouse, Rice Water Rat (rather awkward in my opinion), and Cane Mouse. I left "Colilargo" for Oligoryzomys and Microryzomys. Ucucha 07:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you are looking at "incorrect" scientific names, there are some even better examples: Mustela africana is a South American, Chrysochloris asiatica is a South African, and Chaeropus ecaudatus does have a tail. Ucucha 07:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow bellied marmots

Hi, just wondering why you undid my change on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yellow-bellied_Marmot&action=history from July 10?

All of what I wrote is true. I recently spent several weeks in the Sierra Nevada and saw this at first hand and also received this information from rangers. It's also posted on many signs in the area.

Thanks,

Lee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.182.165 (talk) 03:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The firsthand component and unusual statement looked suspicious to me. It's unsourced and in an awkward location in the article. You are welcome to restore it, though. --Aranae (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'll try and find some sources for it and work it into the article a bit better. Lee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.182.165 (talk) 03:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

help with an image

i know you're very well-versed with rodents, and we have a dearth of images for some animals that should be easy to photograph... could you identify this image? It was taken in Australia. Leaving a note on my talk page would be appreciated. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 09:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, i was going off the description the uploader had given, but had some reservations about a rodent. Other editors at Talk:Rodent agreed that it was a marsupial, although they guessed bettong. I think you're closer, looking at other images of quokkas. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]