This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

May 2010

Re

Hey innotata, I saw your question here. Well, I’m back now, and will try to update it. What I would like to do with WP:MAMMAL is to maybe start collaborations on articles. What do you think? The Arbiter^★_★^★ 16:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborations? I probably wouldn't participate in one; even the bird project is having a hard time getting them started., —innotata 16:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the welcome and the info.

Thank you so very much for the kind welcome. I'll take your advice and find a project or someone to work with very soon.

My apologies for the lack of an edit summary on my first edit, only noticed the box for it as the page was heading off into the 'ether'. By then it was a bit late and wasn't sure if I should do a second edit just to add a summary. As for the four tildes, I'm having trouble making it work, or at least my signature isn't showing up for me, so luckily I finally discovered the signature button that you mentioned for my second edit.

For now while I'm getting used to being an actual logged-in member (I've frequented, and adored, Wikipedia for quite some time now and only last night decided I couldn't pass up one more typo;) ) I think I'll stick to correcting the odd, and obvious, typo. So off I go to learn how to do the Wiki-dance!

Thanks again, --Mlevolence (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The welcome was just a pre-formatted message (typed as {{subst:welcomemenu}}), but I found it useful too. We always could use editors who just fix typos: thanks for your contributions! —innotata 19:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Black-throated Gray Warbler

Hello! Your submission of Black-throated Gray Warbler at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Atmoz (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Black-throated Gray Warbler

On May 9, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Black-throated Gray Warbler, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your watch

I am just learning. Your advice is valuable to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karen Nutini (talk • contribs) 01:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

articles for scanning

I am so sorry for being so useless. I've been laid up at home the last month with a sinus infection (which is why my actual contributions have also been limited lately), and the scanner and book are at work (where I left it prior to scanning it). I'll try and grab it soon. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind; I have lots of things to do here and at Wikisource; Thanks for helping with these articles. —innotata 00:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re Wikisource

Thanks for the note and the work regarding Grinnell and The Condor. Is there a template for Wikisource that I can put in the article to alert the readers? Marcia Wright (talk) 04:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you thinking of? The article has the {{wikisource author}} template in the external links section. To link to wikisource in the text, when appropriate, you use a wikilink with the prefix s:, similar to commons: or meta:, for instance [[s:The Passenger Pigeon|The Passenger Pigeon]] gives The Passenger Pigeon. —innotata 16:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see it there under the Commons box. Thanks Innotata. Cheers Marcia Wright (talk) 03:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC) :)[reply]

Dates of description

Here and here, you moved Category:Animals described in 1975 from a binomial title to a genus title. I had deliberately put it on the binomial redirect, because it is the binomen which was published in 1975 (the genus Gemmotheres wasn't erected until 1996). Would you mind if I undid your actions? This will also help ensure that the date categories are only filled with species, rather than a mixture of ranks. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care much about this, but what you want to doesn't make any sense. The animal Gemmotheres was indeed described in 1975—the page isn't about the genus, but the animal. —innotata 17:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The species Pinnotheres chamae was described in 1975, and was later renamed to Gemmotheres chamae. Although the species and the genus are currently coterminous, they are not the same; the discovery of a new species would make that evident. The article is about the taxon, and at the moment, species and genus cover the same animals, so we use the genus as the title, per WP:TOL, but it's as much about the species as the genus. This strikes me as exactly the sort of case where having the category on a redirect is most useful. The category applies to the species name (which is a redirect), and not to the genus name (which is the article title). --Stemonitis (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't make sense, but I don't really care. —innotata 23:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010

Another thank you for the welcome

Many thanks for the welcome message and the getting-started links, innota. There's lots for me to learn but I hope to be able to contribute a few articles of my own to Wikipedia in due course. IMR (talk) 07:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Animals Signpost Interview

Hello Innotata. Per the request on the WikiProject Desk at the Signpost, I have decided to feature the project on June 28. I will post interview questions here and look forward to your replies. Thank you, mono 20:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

djvu files

→de:Benutzer_Diskussion:Saibo#djvu_since_2010-05-26

18-21 here. The download of issues is often stopping and I have to restart some hours later. :-( As always, please give me a note when downloaded. --Saibo (Δ) 21:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just viewed File:Condor25(6).djvu - is it intentionally named 25 and not 24 (according to the issue)? If you want me to, I could rename the file on commons. I am currently "fighting" for the last 3 issues in volume 22 to 24 - they are hard to download.

I feel sorry for the US football team - they played well, especially in the last minutes. Nevertheless Ghana won well-earned - they were the better team in most parts of the game. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the file, no, it was a typo, but I didn't notice until I had started proofreading on Wikisource, and it will be a ton of trouble to move the Wikisource pages, and if the Commons redirect doesn't work there the pages will all be blank for a while.

I wonder if that is because the 22–24 issues are larger; the editor at the time, Joseph Grinnell, constantly expanded the journal during his tenure. If so, it will be difficult to get issues from the other journals, as they more much larger, with all their interminate lists of birds.

Yes, I've just been watching that game; it was good, but I'm not extremely partisan. Many of my friends cheered for Ghana, and my favourite team is the Netherlands. —innotata 22:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's because of the file size - do not know why either.

Redirects should work (see this example image). Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 14:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisource is a special case, with its side-by-side proofreading system. I'm not sure redirects would work with this. —innotata 16:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last but not least: vol 22-24! :-) See the backupfolder, I needed to download two issues in parts and merge them afterwards. I hope the merged files are complete. Always if I tried to download a special page from the full file it did not work. So I downloaded this page from the files with only contain one article. Quite some work but its done now ;)

Concerning the file with the misleading name: Seems that you need to change the source file name in the proofreading system. Maybe ask on village pump on wikisouce or something like that. Or, of course, just leave it that way and put a warning on the file's desciption page. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 19:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Ships Signpost Interview

Hello Innotata. I noticed you are a member of WikiProject Animals and wanted to let you know that per the request on the WikiProject Desk at the Signpost, we have decided to feature the project on June 28. I will post interview questions here and look forward to your replies. Thank you, mono 23:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Passer motitensis rump colour

I got some feedback here [1] that may be of interest. Shyamal (talk) 02:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much to say. I already noticed the difference in Summers-Smith. —innotata 20:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sparrows

Hi Innotata, I'm some of french user who copies your job on sparrows, you konow ? =D That's pretty impressive, I hope you'll success to make a featured topic ! Thanks a lot for your corrections, regards, Totodu74 (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right, I will put the French translation in brackets, unless I find the right expression. Laters, Totodu74 (talk) 13:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In for another squirrel reclassification?

A great paper was just published on Sulawesi squirrels by Guy Musser and his colleagues. Apart from revising the Sulawesi squirrels and moving some genera around in the Callosciurinae (which should in fact be called Nannosciurinae), they also approve the split of the genus Tamias into Tamias for the eastern chipmunk, Eutamias for the Siberian, and Neotamias for the western North American species. I'm not quite sure yet we should be following this at Wikipedia, but I have seen it used a few more times in the literature, and when Musser says something, it has some weight. Ucucha 17:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this a lot, I think we probably should use it if Musser has "given it some weight". I still haven't rolled out new Spermophilus pages (I've almost finished a navbox), but I plan try to create all the pages as stubs at the same time, and update the species, before expanding the articles. —innotata 17:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good; go ahead. Looking at the molecular trees, it seems a sensible decision, as the differences among the three chipmunk genera look as large as those among the genera of Spermophilus-like ground squirrels. Ucucha 17:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Got the navbox finished, see User:Innotata/Sandbox#Nav_for_Marmotini for now. I'll make the pages starting tomorrow. I haven't managed to get Musser's paper off the AMNH website, though.

(Added after seeing your comment) I will do that then, along with the Spermophilus species, once I get that paper. —innotata 17:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I ought to clarify my opinion a bit. First, I've seen the taxonomy using three species quite often. As for comments on pages and the navbox, I was referring to pages updated for the Spermophilus revision only. However, once I look at the paper, I will probably include the chipmunk revision. —innotata 17:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The paper is very large, but you should eventually be able to get it.

The navbox looks good, but I think it might be better to alphabetize everything. That makes it easier to find a particular species. Also, I know it's the standard in navboxes, but I don't like the underlining for the subgenera; in my view, it draws too much attention to what is after all a relatively minor rank. Ucucha 17:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make those alterations; I was mostly sticking to the two navboxes it will replace. —innotata 17:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tien Shan ground squirrel needs to be split: Helgen, MSW3, and the IUCN split this species into S. ralli and S. relictus, in the case of the IUCN using the vernacular name for both. The current article needs to be moved to Spermophilus relictus (which requires an admin), and an article on S. ralli created. —innotata 16:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Helgen et al. and MSW 3 actually use Tien Shan GS for S. ralli and call S. relictus the "relict ground squirrel"; with such confused common names, we'd better use the unambiguous scientific names. Ucucha 16:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I don't think chipmunk needs to be split. "Chipmunk" is still a useful label, which coincides with a monophyletic group if not with an actual taxon (unless someone reinstates the subtribe Tamiina or even the tribe Tamiini for them). We can just redirect Tamias to the eastern chipmunk and Eutamias to the Siberian (well, perhaps not quite—there are some fossil species) and create a new article Neotamias. Ucucha 16:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't exactly going to split the chipmunk article: just trim it a little bit here and there; for example, the subspecies certainly won't belong on that page (if they ever belong on genus pages). —innotata 16:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to create the Eutamias article; do you know if there are any fossil Tamias sensu stricto species?

I'll have a look. I'll try to sort whatever fossil chipmunks there are. Ucucha 19:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Marmotini nav has now been rolled out; I've modified my plans: I'll update ground squirrel species next, then chipmunks, and then add ground squirrel genera stubs. —innotata 16:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reading around a bit on those fossil chipmunks. As should be expected, their classification hasn't quite kept up with that of the living species. That's why I included the list of Eurasian Tamias species in Eutamias. That those belong to a genus currently represented by a single eastern North American species seems unlikely (though not impossible: there is a fossil Condylura from the Pliocene of Poland, for example). In North America, there is Tamias aristus, a giant chipmunk from the Pleistocene of Georgia, and evidently a true Tamias. In the Miocene, we have the species ateles (Clarendonian and Barstovian) and hulberti (Hemingfordian of Florida), and many samples that can't be identified beyond "chipmunk". Someone proposed placing those two species in their own genus, Nototamias, but apparently it has been synonymized again. I am still trying to find out whether we have any reason to place ateles and hulberti in either Tamias or Neotamias. Ucucha 20:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found some better sources, and it turns out Nototamias is probably valid, and not even a true chipmunk. There are probably true chipmunks since the late Miocene in North America, but I haven't found out what species those are. Ucucha 21:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note on your list of mammals: Notospermophilus should be Notocitellus: see Helgen. —innotata 00:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikisource

Left a note for you, at your Wikisource talk page. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incana e Nectarinia image on ptwiki

Done. Thanks Burmeister (talk) 00:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010

Passer predomesticus

I just (by chance) found that we have the original description of Passer predomesticus Tchernov, 1962, here. Do you still need it? Ucucha 12:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I could certainly use it! —innotata 13:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I won't be able to make scans, though. Perhaps we can just create the article together? Ucucha 15:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. How do you want to start this? —innotata 18:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In a sandbox? User:Ucucha/Passer predomesticus (or User:Innotata/..., if you prefer). Ucucha 18:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea, here. I'll start it as one of your pages. —innotata 18:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through my sparrow books, I had best wait until after you've started writing up the text; most of what I can add is context on the other sparrows, and the environment at the time the species was extant. —innotata 18:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll start writing tomorrow when I have Tchernov's paper again. Shall we aim for a GA? Ucucha 18:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Making this a GA seems crazy. But if I want to make all the Passer articles GAs or FAs, this will be needed. —innotata 19:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure we'll be able to get more information than there is on ?Oryzomys pliocaenicus—or Miniopterus zapfei, for that matter. :-) Ucucha 19:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added what I could from Tchernov, as well as some information from Markus. It's not much, as the description is very brief and the only character that is explored in some depth is the ventral groove/ridge. Ucucha 07:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you've got everything? Does Tchernov mention habitat? Could we cite another paper about the fauna of the cave for suchlike? I think pliocaenicus is rather close to what I expect the article can be like.

Here's what sparrow books say: Summers-Smith says Tchernov described the other Passer fossils as P. cf. domesticus and P. cf. moabiticus, and as "precursors" of those species. Summers-Smith also mentions fossils of P. cf. domesticus and P. cf. hispaniolensis that Tchernov described in the same paper from an "undetermined Acheulean layer". Then more things about early P. domesticus and precursors. Summers-Smith mentions a paper in Granivorous Birds in Ecosystems (at a library here) by Johnston and Klitz which states P. domesticus and hispaniolensis can not be distinguished by bones, so he concludes that we can only infer from the fossils that a precursor of domesticus was around about 350 000 years ago. Anderson has more from Johnston and Klitz, and I expect there are some relevant things in both books I haven't found yet, since predomesticus isn't properly indexed in either.

Etian Tchernov, by the way, sure could have an article (he's probably best known for describing Haasiophis ten years ago). —innotata 15:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will have another look Monday; I don't think there was much. He did also describe other Passer (cf. domesticus, cf. hispaniolensis, and cf. moabiticus); I mentioned some in the article and there were indeed also some from an undetermined layer. Tchernov hardly mentions the traits he uses for identification, and often says things like "This fossil resembled Passer X most among the Passer species examined, but does not entirely agree with it." and no more. (For my part, I don't see why he assigned the tarsometatarsus and humerus from the same layer that yielded P. predomesticus to P. cf. domesticus, and not P. cf. predomesticus.) I think you have some good material to add, so please do. Ucucha 16:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Can you get the full information on how the measurements of predomesticus match up to those of domesticus and hispaniolensis? From some snippets of the description at Google Books, it seems predomesticus was a bit small.

That about Tchernov explains a lot. I'll start adding stuff, and reorganising the article probably. What's the "Domestic Sparrow" thing in what's now the "Relationships" section? —innotata 16:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And now something else. I just looked carefully through the two pages of Summers-Smith with most stuff about this species to see if I missed anything—and I did. Summers-Smith mentions that Tchernov attributed predomesticus to the Yabrudian layers of Oumm-Qatafa in a contribution to a 1984 volume of Animals and Archaeology. I don't know what Summers-Smith means by this—if Tchernov found more fossils, or dated them better, or something else. —innotata 16:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This? Do you know the full citation? From reading Acheulo-Yabrudian Complex, it appears "Yabrudian" and "Acheulean" may have similar meanings here. Measurements for a host of Passer are here; I agree it would be good to add some more of that to the predomesticus article. Ucucha 17:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: "Commensal animals and human sedentism in the Middle East" in Animals and Archaeology III: Early Herders and Their Flocks. 91–115. —innotata 00:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't sound too promising. Do you have access to the book? Ucucha 06:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't either. Summers-Smith gives the Yabrudian as being somewhat more recent than the Acheulean; if we now know otherwise, this will be rather complicated. —innotata 12:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be able to get it; will see what he has to say. Reading the Acheulo-Yabrudian complex a little more closely, it appears Summers-Smith is right; the AYC postdates the Acheulean. Ucucha 14:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You just added that "Tchernov did not designate a type specimen"—in fact, he did, in a way. He said something like "Holotype and paratype are in the collections of ..." in a footnote to the measurements table, but did not give catalog numbers. I am afraid I actually forgot to look at his paper again today; I will tomorrow. Ucucha 17:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC) On p. 121, Tchernov argues that the birds of the "Lower Acheulian" layers of Mugharet-Oumm-Qatafa are indicative of a Mediterranean, but somewhat more rainy climate (not, as alleged by Dorothea Bate, a tropical, hot, humid climate). However, the birds he lists for the "Lower Acheulian" are different from those listed in his faunal lists (pp. 99–100). The only layer he calls "lower Acheulean" [sic], E2, is said to contain "only a few fragments of Columba livia". The birds he lists for the "Lower Acheulian" on p. 121 are scattered among the faunal lists for layers F (Tayacian), E1 (Middle Acheulean; the P. predomesticus layer), and D2 (Upper Acheulean). On pp. 121–123, he also discusses the gradual change in the Levant fauna, from mostly Ethiopian in the late Miocene to mostly Palearctic now. There are no more measurements than those I already listed from Markus, and the caption of the measurement table has a footnote which reads:[reply]

"* Holotype; 1 premaxilla from layer E¹

Paratype; 1 premaxilla from layer E¹ both in the collection of the Zool. Dept., Hebrew Univ."

He doesn't mention the holotype anywhere else. Ucucha 11:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just got Tchernov 1984. He mostly reiterates what the said in 1962, but does indeed say that predomesticus is from the Yabrudian, about 140,000 years ago. By the way, could you have a look at WT:TOL#Disambiguator for monotypic genera? Ucucha 20:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add what there is in Tchernov's papers? I have borrowed Johnston and Klitz from a library for a few weeks, but I'd like to start adding things after you've added what is immediately above. —innotata 15:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've added everything of substance now. We may wish to insert some of the comparative measurements given by Markus; they're in my talk archive. Ucucha 15:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are we done now? Ucucha 18:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the article could be moved to the article space, but I don't quite think it is finished. The lead doesn't really match the text: it should mention who Tchernov was, though I can't find a satisfactory way to do so; perhaps it should avoid the word "discover"; and it probably should clarify that the House Sparrow is a commensal of humans, and not use "wild" as a sort of opposite to commensal. Some bits of the article also don't fit in very well; the present organisation is not the best. It might be good to state that Johnston and Klitz didn't think House and Spanish Sparrows are identifiable from bones (though the mention of their paper may be enough), but like the statement on Anderson's comments on evolutionary history, this is not quite directly related. A citation that there any "others" who have considered predomesticus as close to the ancestor of the House Sparrow is needed—would these brief mentions do—[2][3][4]? And as you noted earlier it may be good to add measurements of other sparrows from Markus. —innotata 19:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That last link is interesting; it mentions remains from France that could not be attributed with certainty to domesticus or predomesticus. Unfortunately, it cites a Ph.D. thesis (Mourer-Chauviré C., 1975. Les oiseaux du Pléistocène moyen et supérieur de France. Thèse d'État Université Claude Bernard, Lyon, n° 75-14.) I might be able to get it, but probably not.

The statement about "others" was meant as a summary of the opinions of Markus, Johnston and Klitz, and Summers-Smith, but perhaps it's not a fair one.

I'm not convinced "wild" as opposed to "commensal" is inappropriate; it's a term I often see in similar contexts (for example, in the house mouse and related species), and Tchernov (1984) also uses it for P. predomesticus.

I worked from the organization of some of your other sparrow articles when writing the article, but for a poorly known fossil such as this, a different organization may be appropriate. Feel free, of course, to edit it. Ucucha 10:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This source may also help; I'll have a look at it. Ucucha 10:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please look at the sources you mentioned, and the brief mentions above (if you can't find the thesis, can't we cite the last brief mention I gave). Yes, I'm not sue the "others" is an adequate summary. I don't think using wild and commensal as is done is very appropriate. For one thing, it should clarify that House Sparrows have a commensal relationship with humans, maybe that will be enough. --—innotata 17:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did find Mourer-Chauvire (it had actually been published in a series at the University of Lyon) and added in a find that could not be attributed to either d. or p. with certainty. The Nuttall book on Pleistocene Palearctic birds says P. predomesticus from Israel is from zone MNQ 24, which according to its original definition (doi:10.1016/S0016-6995(82)80076-4) is equivalent to the Saalian glaciation and about 0.25 to 0.15 Ma. But there are older records of the House Sparrow in France, from zone MNQ 22 (Elster glaciation, 0.5 to 0.35 Ma). Ucucha 07:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This paper also has some fossil records of Passer. There is apparently one from MN 2a (early Miocene), which according to Mlikovsky is questionable. Ucucha 07:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why Mourer-Chauvire singled out predomesticus as another possibility (because of a misunderstanding of the literature that predomesticus is a direct ancestor?); do they mention any other Passer species? The Cenozoic Birds entry gives a fossil as "Passer montanus (Linnaeus) – House Sparrow"; Passer montanus is actually the Eurasian Tree Sparrow. —innotata 17:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She doesn't specify the bones found there, but it is possible that they were sufficient to distinguish the animal from other candidate Passer species. I don't think there were other plausible Passer species. Ucucha 17:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly does Mourer-Chauvire say? I would expect such a specimen would be described as "Passer cf. domesticus or hispaniolensis" or "Passer sp.", as is done in some other papers (perhaps more recent, but what was Mourer-Chauvire's specimen dated to?) Of course, we must follow all the oddities of authors.

I suppose this page can be moved now; any remaining issues probably can be addressed with the good article review. —innotata 20:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She listed a number of sites where she found P. domesticus, and noted for this one site that she could not determine whether it was domesticus or predomesticus. However, in the faunal list for the cave, she simply mentions domesticus. I'll move the page. Ucucha 20:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's in mainspace and at GAN now. Can you think of a suitable DYK hook? Ucucha 20:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A suitable DYK hook? No, perhaps something about the association with humans … —innotata 20:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing good, but "… that the fossil Passer predomesticus was first seen as the wild ancestor of the House Sparrow, but instead both may have occurred with Palaeolithic humans?" and "… that the fossil relative of the House Sparrow Passer predomesticus is known only from two upper jaw bones?" I'll bring these to the DYK page; please improve or suggest a new one if you can. —innotata 21:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first hook is inaccurate; Tchernov argued that it was related to the ancestor, not that it was the ancestor. The second one is pretty standard for poorly known fossils, but not too bad. Ucucha 21:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the error from editing it shorter at the nomination. Agreed, on the second hook. —innotata 21:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HBW

Glad you got it sorted. I've been out of work for ages due to a nasty medical problem, so I haven't really been able to do anything useful lately. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File tagging

Hi, File:SP fall-off after pub week (day ranges).jpg is unlikely to be used anywhere else but the Signpost discussion page, as currently. I created three graphs for the same usage. Tony (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Free images should always be uploaded to the Commons. In this case, an example of a benefit is that these images can be categorised there with other graphics about Wikipedia. —innotata 16:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I thought Commons might object to the "old news, spent" aspect of it. Also, I didn't want to put the graphs up as the be all and end all, since the traffic data on which they 're based is probably an underestimate. The three graphs are at the bottom of WT:POST. Tony (talk) 04:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I don't know how Wikipedia-related charts are categorised on Commons, I've tagged the other images with {{move to commons}}. —innotata 13:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Villiers Wikisource

Hi Innotata, A few thoughts of the page [5] you recently edited linking Charles Hart using the [q. v.] instead of the the name. Although various views about the [q. v,] or "name" subject has been under discussion [6] this particular page seems, in my view, puts the ambiguity to rest when looking at the links near the beginning of the page; i.e., "Stuarts'" where the name is the only choice available unless we link the "see" and the "and" which, to me at least, would challenge overall consistency of the project. While the discussion renders several interesting viewpoints I believe this particular page offers an obvious solution. I have redone the link to Charles Hart by linking the name as well as indicating by year of death which Charles Hart it is. Thanks. Daytrivia (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I prefer linking at the [q. v.], but I recognise that the consensus is that both are OK. However, I don't see how the references to the articles on the Stuarts should affect this. —innotata 16:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a decision will be made soon. Sorry I wasn't clear I hope this helps. The references I made to the Stuarts was made because "Charles Stuart" does not have a parameter of "[q. v.]", or a "See" to use for linking; only the word "and" which doesn't seem appropriate to me. Obviously Wikisource will have to address the issue the closer the DNB gets to completion. Thanks for your thoughts and prompt response. Daytrivia (talk) 21:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.