User talk:Ucucha/Archive16

Archives

Leave a new message

another rat!

Congrats again! Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The next one will be ready soon. It's a bit different, as it's an animal we actually know a great deal about. Ucucha 00:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quehanna Wild Area

	<font=3> Thanks again for your checking the dabs and external links. Quehanna Wild Area is now a featured article! Auntieruth55 (talk) and Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. You should rather send the thanks to yourself though, since you've done a lot more than checking a few links. Ucucha 01:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a pleasant surprise

It was an unexpected, and very pleasant surprise to see that you had added me to the Erythrina veluntina DYK nom. Thank you. Guettarda (talk) 03:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome; your sources helped greatly in writing it up. Congratulations on Aiphanes passing FAC! Ucucha 03:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao

Hello, you recently commented at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao/archive1. People are beginning to make their Support / Oppose decisions now, and I think the article is relatively complete, so I'd like to invite you to give it (another) look and weigh in one way or the other. Thanks! ɳorɑfʈ^Talk! 10:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only made a few general comments; I don't have time to evaluate this article fully enough to support or oppose it. Ucucha 11:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick re-review

Since you were the one who performed the GAC review of Collared Brown Lemur, would you please take a quick look at it and help resolve an issue with the photos used on the page. I tried adding a photo I took in Madagascar that includes a male, female, infant, and one other adult. In the article itself, the image looks fine. However, if you view the full-size image, the faces are a little fuzzy. The author of the image I replaced wanted his image restored because he feels the faces in his image are sharper. I was just looking to replace a zoo photo with a natural habitat photo. Now there's an issue with page layout, which I don't think can be resolved given the limited amount of text in the article. Your thoughts? If you feel only one image is useful, feel free to remove whichever photo you feel should go. I won't be offended if it's mine. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to. I didn't do the GA review for that one, though. :) Ucucha 21:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I've gotten so used to you doing the reviews that I figured it had been you. Sorry about that. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. For what it's worth, I think the best way to handle this is as it is now—include both pictures. They are both relevant to the sections they are in. Ucucha 21:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Philip Hershkovitz

On March 29, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Philip Hershkovitz, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking input

Ucucha, I've just finished with my re-editing of the Cream-coloured giant squirrel article, and I think I'm more-or-less satisfied with how it looks for now. It happens to be the first in taxonomic order of the species of tree squirrels, and so I'm planning on going through the rest of the species and basically mimicking this article's general appearance for the rest of them. Specifically, I want to include the following:

1) The taxonomy table for the subspecies I made - there are so many synonyms associated with subspecies, that they would not look good if included in the taxonomy sidebar template, even though there's a field for synonyms there. So I've created this table which I plan to use for the other tree squirrel species' articles.

2) The lead sentence and paragraph formatting - it's based on our discussion yesterday in the WikiProject:Rodents talk page.

3) SVG range map.

4) Breaking the Bibliography section out from the References section.

Please let me know what you think - I'd rather incorporate any changes you'd think are warranted now rather than later after much editing. Thanks! --Saukkomies ^talk 18:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think "tree squirrel species of rodent in the Sciuridae family" is rather too wordy, and it omits the genus—I would say something like "The cream-coloured giant squirrel (Ratufa affinis) is a squirrel in the genus Ratufa found in ...". And the subspecies table—I'm not sure how I'd handle that. I'd probably put it in a list like this:

Ratufa affinis affinis Raffles, 1821 (synonyms: albiceps, aureiventer, ...)

which looks less obtrusive than a table.

Thanks for the work you've been doing on the squirrels. Ucucha 19:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the subspecies that I'm running into is that some of them have over a dozen synonyms each! No matter what you do, it's going to end up looking intrusive and dumb, so that's why I thought I'd just dump it all into a table, which although intrusive, is at least more organized than an enormous paragraph of scientific-jargon nomenclature jammed together. A bulletted list (which is what I believe you're implying) is nice, but when you have subspecies with a huge number of synonyms each, the bullet method might end up looking too disorganized, but that's really just personal taste. I did place the table at the very bottom of the article, which makes it a little less obtrusive, and I intentionally made it as simple as possible, for the same reason. I dunno. I would like to maintain a consistency in the appearance of the articles, so I am of the mind to keep the table in, but at the bottom of the page.

I agree with you, though, about the business regarding the klunky wording in the first sentence. I was trying to get the link to the Tree squirrel article stuck in the opening sentence, which would link it to an article that deals with subjects concerning squirrels that will not be included in the species' articles... But it just is too klunky, so I think I'll take your advice on how to do the first sentence, and then just include a link to Tree squirrels somewhere in the first paragraph somewhere...

At any rate, thanks for your advice! I'll keep plugging away at these articles. The one I just showed you happens to be one that needed a LOT of editing (I'm not sure who it was that originally wrote it up, but the person definitely did not speak English as their native tongue). My guess is they were Malay... But that's okay - it's articles like that that keep me feeling like I'm doing something worthwhile by editing Wikipedia. :) So, toodaloo. --Saukkomies ^talk 20:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was implying a bulleted list. I wouldn't think that looks disorganized, but perhaps it's a matter of personal taste, as you say. Ucucha 21:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do think I'll keep my table, if nothing more than for the dumb reason that I took the time to make it. But I did adopt much of the rest of your recommendations - which I believe will go to improve the quality of the articles I'm working on. I hope I don't run out of steam on this project before it's done - I would like to leave behind a standardized and high-quality set of articles for every tree squirrel species.

There is one thing I would like to discuss with you - it's the matter of the naming of some of these articles - and what better example to use than the one we just mentioned: the Cream-coloured giant squirrel. I believe you hold the opinion that the articles ought to have the title of the taxonomic name, and then have the common name referenced in the opening sentence, instead of the other way around like it is so often - and I too am of that opinion. So, how difficult would it be to do this? To go through the entire 125 or so tree squirrel articles - to select those that have common names as the title, and to create new articles using the accepted taxonomic names and move the articles? I believe this takes certain privileges to do, which I believe you have, no? So, if I do all the groundwork, would you be willing to perform the moves? How does one go about all this? Would I need to inform the intention of an article's move in its talk page to see whether anyone objected first? Thanks for your reply. --Saukkomies ^talk 00:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some time ago, we've come to a consensus at WP:RODENT that articles should be at the scientific name if the common name is not well-established. See User:Ucucha/Titles. The difficulty is where to draw the line between common names that we obviously should not use as article titles—like "Lower California Rice Rat" for Oryzomys peninsulae, which has been used only once, in 1918—and those that we certainly should use—like "fox squirrel" for Sciurus niger, which is in nearly universal use. At the page I linked, I propose a numerical test to determine which name to use, which seems to work reasonably well. I don't know how many squirrel common names would fail the test, but I expect most species outside the US, Canada, and Europe should be at the scientific names.

You can probably move most of those pages yourself by using the "move" tab, but for at least a few you will probably need admin assistance, and I'm willing to help there. There's no need to ask at the talk page first, as you're bringing the article in line with an established convention. Ucucha 00:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More category fun

We've got someone who's just created a category Category:Indriidae and is moving taxa categories out of Category:Lemurs into it. Since you've got a mop, do you mind helping with this? – VisionHolder « talk » 18:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've sent the user a message on their talk; I'll see what happens and delete the category if they agree. Ucucha 18:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 US Open Cup FA review

Re: [1], sorry if you didn't like the nomination text. I've seen complaints on WT:FAC before about how nominators always say pretty much the same thing: "I'm nominating article X because... I think it meets the criteria." This was my lame attempt to make it more interesting. --SkotyWA^T_C 16:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was my even more lame attempt to respond to it. No need to apologize; if you wish, I can strike the lame part of my comment. Ucucha 16:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. --SkotyWA^T_C 17:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck on the FAC; I hope some people who do like football will come along soon to review. Ucucha 17:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Tachyoryctes rex

On April 1, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tachyoryctes rex, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your 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.

Royal broil 12:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Synonym of Crunomys species

Hey there. I know that the source you stated puts them as synonyms but what about all the other sources that say otherwise: [2], [3] and [4], EOL seems to have even given it a common name. I was also hoping you can take a look at [5] (I am unable to access it for some reason but I think it is my computer/internet stuffing up). Now I am no expert understandably and I am just going by what the websites are giving and I would accept that they made a mistake (or perhaps out of date?). Cheers!Calaka (talk) 02:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ITIS and EOL are out of date there. C. rabori was synonymized under C. melanius in 1998 (Fieldiana Zoology 89), as it was based on an old individual of C. melanius, and that synonymy has been accepted by all good sources since. The link you gave goes to the Biodiversity Heritage Library, which is generally a great source for old taxonomic papers, but which is apparently down at the moment. Ucucha 03:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah that makes sense. Thank you for the quick and good reply. Keep up the great work! (PS. I made a few rodent related articles/redirects/etc. and you are more than welcome to make any improvements/changes/modifications to my edits as I am just going on what I am able to access from the global names index (+ what Google gives me) which as you correctly pointed out might not always be up to date/accurate. Kind regards.Calaka (talk) 03:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'd probably best use MSW 3 (available at http://www.bucknell.edu/msw3). There have been some taxonomic changes since then, though; the list at User:Ucucha/List of mammals is pretty much up to date and I can give references where needed. Sources like the name index don't impress me as of high taxonomic quality. Ucucha 03:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I will work on that list for now. I am currently waiting for Raul to do some fixes before I implement the global names index through and was just going through the mammals list over here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals/Missing mammal species‎‎. But while I admit the GNI is not 100% perfect, I like how it is able to list multiple sources for the name and within them gives multiple references. It is a shame as I am unable to always access the sources or find the most up to date ones. But I guess that is where people like you come in. ;) Cheers!Calaka (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Cryptonanus

On April 4, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cryptonanus, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lemur review

Thanks for starting a very thorough review of Lemur. If you feel the summary page should be renamed, then go for it. I will do my best to attend to the article on either Friday evening or Saturday morning. I can't do it now because of work. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, thank you for the awesome copyedit! It's looking great! – VisionHolder « talk » 20:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still going through—I'll have lots of suggestions for you on the GAN page. Ucucha 20:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if you preferred the 4th alt for the Lemur article in DYK, you might want to review it quickly. The article just got moved to the Prep 2 area with the very simple 1st alt. Personally, I'm content with all the alts given, but since most people who voiced an opinion favored the 4th, maybe it should be the one used. Also, I've removed the convert template from the Lemur article. Let me know if the page loads appreciably faster for you. – VisionHolder « talk » 13:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It still takes a long time, but I think it got a bit better. Yes, I noticed that the rather bland Alt1 got picked. I would replace it with ALT4, but the claim made in the hook (lemurs are the only primates with female dominance) is stronger than anything in the article, and the Dunham paper doesn't seem to support it. Ucucha 13:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the hook [6]; what do you think of this one? Ucucha 20:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've taken the Lemur GAC as far as I can go without your additional input. I still have a problem with the "Human interactions" subsection idea, mostly because it would create two sub-subsections under conservation, and I don't want to lose those section headers. Otherwise, I just need a little help tracking down very old sources for the Etymology section, and I think that's it... minus some stuff that's out of our control. I know you're busy, so I'll be waiting patiently. Thanks again for your very thorough review! – VisionHolder « talk » 22:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I spent my time writing articles about odd microbes that infect marsh rice rats (parasites of the marsh rice rat should go to FLC someday, so I need to get rid of the red links) and obscure aspects of rodent anatomy, so I can spare some time for this. Ucucha 23:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Akodon caenosus

On April 5, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Akodon caenosus, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your 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.

Ucucha 06:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Springhare - potentially new species - merge genus to family page or leave as it is?

Hey Ucucha. I know you don't have an interest in all rodents but I was wondering if you could spare some time to help out with the Springhare article. It currently is acting as a genus page as it indicated that there was only one species at the time the page was made. However I did find a number of links to suggest that there is an additional species: [7], [8], [9], [10] and most crucially [11] which states: "Taxonomic Notes: This species is here recognized as a distinct species from the Southern African Spring-hare, Pedetes capensis, as recently confirmed by Matthee and Robinson (1997), and in agreement with the treatment of Dieterlen (2005)." There is also: [12] for journals which I am unable to access but from some of their blurbs it indicates the additional species. Now my concern is in actually creating the species page. I.e. what do I do with Springhare? I am not sure whether to move the whole thing to a species page called the Southern African Spring-hare and then make a new genus page (i.e. still at springhare) and then list the two species and have the family page redirect to it (since there is only one genus in the family - and while I mentioned that, I actually thought the genus had to be redirected to the family page if there was only one of it...). So anyway, any advice/comments/suggestions more than welcome. Do feel free to move the pages if you happen to agree with the multiple species present. Oh and I also happend to have found additional genera named Pedetes that happen to be in the insect class. Cheers!Calaka (talk) 09:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, two species of springhare are currently recognized; it's gone back and forth a few times but appears to be accepted now. However, there is the additional detail that we in fact also have a second genus in Pedetidae, Megapedetes (a fossil). I think it would make most sense to arrange things this way:

Family Pedetidae
- Genus Megapedetes
- Genus Springhares (Pedetes)
  - Pedetes capensis
  - Pedetes surdaster

We really should be using scientific names for the titles of the species, as they are so recently recognized that there are no well-established common names (WP:RODENT#Guidelines). Ucucha 11:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah excellent! I will try and re do the articles sometime soon if time allows. Re: the scientific names vs. common names: would the year 2,000 be a good benchmark (i.e. if it was a common name since before 2,000 then it can be the title of the article, anything newer and use the scientific name)? I guess in most of the previous species I have encountered I noticed a lot more scientific rather than common names whereas common tends to have multiple versions of them. Cheers!Calaka (talk) 11:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I think all the species you're working on should be at their scientific names. We don't really have hard rules, but User:Ucucha/Titles gives one possible test. Perhaps I'll create the Megapedetes article in a while. Ucucha 11:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just created Pedetes (disambiguation) and slightly edited springhare. When y'all are done, it would probably be good to move the dab page to Pedetes. Cheers! - UtherSRG (talk) 11:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so; the springhare Pedetes is probably the primary topic for the term. The one beetle Pedetes is a synonym of Agriotes and the other is apparently an MS name that has never been used much [13]. Ucucha 11:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eitherway, MSW3 lists common names for the two springhare species. The fact that it lists two species means we should have had two articles (plus the genus article) a bit before now! *grins* - UtherSRG (talk) 12:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got the family page out of a redirect and placed the two genera in. But yeah, you are probably right, in future all the species I deal with I will use their scientific names (from that mammals list). Oh and excellent work on making the genus page! That solves the issue of the possible multiple name use.Calaka (talk) 12:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the Paleobiology database there seems to be an additional genus under the family: [14]. Add that in as well? It refs the same person who named the megapedetes genus (in 1997).Calaka (talk) 12:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Parapedetes? That is in a separate family according to McKenna and Bell.

I found the other beetle Pedetes; it is an unpublished name and a synonym of Orchestes. UtherSRG, what about getting rid of the dab page and just putting a hatnote on springhare directing to Agriotes and Orchestes? Ucucha 12:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah on the paleo website it lists it in the same family (even though it refs the mckenna and bell paper). But most likely error on the websites part then.

Excellent find for the other beetle! I am quite amazed it is even listed as an alternate considering the obscurity of that one ref. Good job! I will be going away now but if the genus/species pages are not done by tomorrow I will give them a go. Cheers and thanks again!Calaka (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted and restored the dab... the hatnote was too long when I tried it.... I'm strongly in favor of short hatnotes when possible. I've put both beetle genera in the dab page instead of a single link. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think it all works now.

As for the springhares, I found out that there is an additional fossil species of Pedetes, Pedetes laetoliensis, and there are two more species of Megapedetes from the Miocene of Arrisdrift, Namibia, Megapedetes gariepensis and Megapedetes pickfordi, in addition to Megapedetes pentadactylus from Kenya and Megapedetes aegaeus from Turkey (Paleontologia Africana 34:101–109; Geological Survey of Namibia Memoir 19:161–170). I'll take a shot at writing articles for some of those in a few days if I have time. Ucucha 14:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Israeli record is Megapedetes cf. M. pentadactylus and the Saudi record is apparently also M. pentadactylus (Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 7:300, [15]). And there is Megapedetes sp. in Beni Mellal in North Africa (Geobios 39:789–798). The Chinese found a fourth lower premolar of a pedetid in the Miocene of Yunnan (Journal of Human Evolution 32:535–546), but I'm a bit skeptical about that. Ucucha 14:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinese guy might be a diatomyid (Vertebrata PalAsiatica 44:190), a more geographically plausible choice. Ucucha 14:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK so I got the Pedetes genus page out of a redirect state and modified the species page of pedetess capensis accordingly. Should the springhare name be just of the one species or represent the entire genus? I guess people have usually associated it with the one species so if it is left as it is I don't mind but I will wait for you to say what is best. Good on you for finding more info re: the other genus and more species. I will tackle the other Pedetes species while you feel free to give Megapedetes a go. I will help out with extra refs/further reading sources once you complete it. Good team might I add. :)Calaka (talk) 06:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Pedetes (disambiguation)‎‎ still shows NA class... - UtherSRG (talk) 06:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would that require updating the template itself? Or has disambig been enabled before with that template? Template:WikiProject_Animals.Calaka (talk) 06:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does not seem to be other dabs present: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Animals/Assessment. Not sure how to enable it though. :SCalaka (talk) 12:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the problems seems to be in the template. I agree it's probably best to have springhare = Pedetes capensis; that's also how it's been done with the capybara.

Calaka, as for the species list you added to Rhynchaenus, I am pretty sure it contains many species that should in fact be in Orchestes (you listed Rhynchaenus alni, for example, which is now placed in Orchestes). The source we should be using is a catalog of the family published in 1999, which unfortunately is not online. But I think it may be best to leave out the species list as long as we're not sure that the species belong there. Ucucha 11:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah that's fair enough, I will remove the species list, yeah I just followed I think EOL or the organismnames websites but best to get it from the source. Cheers!Calaka (talk) 12:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I might have a look at the source the next time I am in the library. Ucucha 12:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm... I think springhare should be pointed at from Pedestes, as it is likely both extant species will have "springhare" or "spring hare" in their common name, eventually. (MSW3 already includes common names for both: http://www.bucknell.edu/MSW3/browse.asp?id=13200003 and http://www.bucknell.edu/MSW3/browse.asp?id=13200004, and these names are used by a few other sources as well. Doesn't meet rule of double 5s though, AFAICT.) - UtherSRG (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pedestes? That'll get us even more homonyms (a butterfly this time). I can see your argument; on the other hand, the southern African species (P. capensis) is likely to remain the most prominent one and the one people will be most interested in. Whatever we do, we should clearly define what each article is about. Ucucha 15:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saxaul Sparrow

Thanks for reviewing. Can you send me those papers (though I don't think the abstracts will do much, since they may not mention this particular bird). Can you also see if you can find:

Tchernov 1969 Bull. Res. Comm. Israel 11B

I don't expect you'll be able to find this, but I'll need this paper to find out about Passer predomesticus, a fossil—other papers on it are not in English, and this may not be. There are some more papers I rather could use for Italian Sparrow (and Spanish Sparrow) I can't get, but I expect you can get ahold of—I'll send a list of the most important ones later. —innotata 21:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That should go via e-mail (it's too much for me to be comfortable posting it all on the wiki), and you don't have e-mail enabled. Most abstracts do mention P. ammodendri. I'll see what I can do with the Tchernov paper. Ucucha 21:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent you a blank e-mail (I can e-mail others through emailuser). —innotata 21:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail sent. Ucucha 21:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, though none of the Russian abstracts will be of any use, since they don't say anything about the Saxaul Sparrow specifically, beyond that it was included in the study. The 1875 Ibis papers could be cited, so as to cite an original authority. —innotata 22:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Favor

Hi Ucucha, I was wondering if you might be able to do me a favor. I'm working on the article Sarcoscypha coccinea (currently a GAN) in prep for FAC, and one source I'd like to include is in Dutch.

Title: White Sarcoscypha coccinea fruitbodies and a foray

Author(s): Van Duuren, Y.; Van Duuren, G.

Source: Coolia Volume: 48 Issue: 3 Pages: 169-170 Published: 2005

I can tell from the title what it's generally about, but that's it. Would you be able to quickly check the article (available here) and see if there's anything more I could add to a sentence like "White fruit bodies have occasionally been reported"? Sasata (talk) 21:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. They say that they found yellow and even white fruiting bodies. They were microscopically identical to normal red ones, except that the parafysen (paraphyses?) don't contain carotenoids. Apparently, there are three different classes of carotenoids and each of those can be absent due to rare genetic defects, creating orange, yellow, and white S. coccinea. S. coccinea grows mainly on essenhout (=Fraxinus) in the Netherlands. Ucucha 21:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Thanks for your assistance. Sasata (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The genetic stuff was given to them by one Hans-Otto Baral and may (should?) also be published elsewhere. Ucucha 21:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's probably from a German article that I have in front of me now. Luckily, I can struggle through German enough to decipher it. Sasata (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can help with that too if necessary. Ucucha 22:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I may take you up on that later; I'll see how it goes with rusty high school German, Babelfish, and a trusty Wörterbuch :) Sasata (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sciurini article dilemma

Ucucha, I need your help. I have been working on the Sciurini article all day - and have made a huge amount of changes to the article's citation references, with some other minor changes here and there in the text. The problem is that I didn't realize that you'd made changes during the time I was making them, and so when I saved my changes I basically reverted the article back to before your changes were made.

What complicates this is that I cannot (for some bizarre reason I can't figure out) make my "Diff" feature work, so I don't know which changes you made. I tell you this so that perhaps you can go back and reinstate your changes - but please don't revert my edit - it really did improve the article in many ways, as I hope you'll see. Sorry about this, I hope you understand. --Saukkomies ^talk 00:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why you thought that change necessary; the article has a consistent and established citation style (the same I used in other articles I wrote), and according to WP:CITEHOW citation styles should not be changed needlessly. I have reverted it. Ucucha 01:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The changes I made not only just changed the style of citation (which I'm sorry, but it sucked the way it was), but I also added a LOT of extra information into almost every one of those citations - such things as full names for authors, OCLC numbers, more accurate publication information, etc. By spuriously reverting my edit you are tossing out a huge amount of labor on my part, which I had only the best of intentions in doing. If this is not corrected, then I will take my work and effort elsewhere and forget about contributing to the squirrel articles I've done so much work on. An apology is also in order, I believe. The least you could have done is to talk about it with me - as I have tried to do here with you. Such behavior does not encourage someone such as myself (a dedicated editor) to have anything to do with articles you seem to feel like you "own".

On another note, there's a user I found that needs to be blocked. Here's the user: 76.255.195.240 - and the vandalism may be seen here. --Saukkomies ^talk 02:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You feel the previous style does not work well; I feel the one you introduced doesn't work. So far we are equal, but I think there are some objective reasons to prefer, at least for the moment, my version: yours has stray punctuation marks, double links to the same page, nonfunctional ISBN links, and missing authors. I suppose I could have fixed those issues, but saw no reason not to restore the previous, well-functioning version instead.

I really appreciate your work with the squirrels: your range maps are great and you've improved a lot of articles. But when you spend time on something on Wikipedia, that does not necessarily mean you're improving the article. First names for authors, very precise dates of publication, places of publication, and ISSN and OCLC links are not needed to identify the citations and the presence of such extraneous information adds little (no one needs to be told that the Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History is published by the American Museum of Natural History, I hope). Ucucha 02:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am (among many other things) a professional librarian that has worked many years at hard-core academic/research reference desks. I've done more digging for articles and citations than you will ever encounter in your entire life. There is one thing I can tell you for absolute certain: whenever anyone includes as much data in a citation as can possibly be found, it is absolutely fantastic for anyone who is trying to chase down leads or dig into deeper levels of research beyond what the paper at hand might offer. You just threw away all that work I did without a by-your-leave, and that really sucked. And no, your "style" was not really a style - it was a sophomoric attempt at best. --Saukkomies ^talk 03:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(margin readjusted) I hope it's not too late to apologize for behaving like an ass. I never enjoy having my work reverted, but that is no excuse.

At any rate, if you are of a mind, I believe I could actually provide some advice on how to create the most professional-looking style for a paper or article - it's what I've done for the greater part of three decades and more. Just as anyone could hotglue some junkyard trash together and call it art (and this could be shown in a prestigious art gallery), it doesn't necessarily mean that it would be the type of art that would be good to use in every application. So too is it with composition styles - some are more suitable for academic articles and papers than others. What I produced yesterday was a solidly academic style that would be completely suitable to have used for any peer-reviewed journal submission. However, the style that you are using is not, I regret to say. I know you're from Cambridge, and it might be difficult to accept that a dumb Yank who lives in the sticks of Michigan might have anything to teach you along the lines of academic composition. However, the fact is that I bow to your superior knowledge of taxonomy and biology (neither of which are subjects I am expert in), but I believe I have a better understanding of what is most acceptable as far as academic style goes in the formatting of professional-looking articles and papers. It's a subjective opinion, though, and one based on limited input, so of course I might be completely off of my rocker.

But there it is: the reason I undertook the project yesterday was that I believed I was not looking at any "style" at all in that article - at least as far as the references were being done. The article itself was fine - indeed, the construction and organization of the content was superb. But the references were (I honestly believed) a mess, and that is why I set about improving it. What I ended up producing was the standard accepted reference formatting style that most peer-reviewed academic journals insist upon for any submissions. In my opinion, I improved it. Of course you will find exceptios to this, but these are exceptions, not the standard.

Feedback on this is appreciated, and will be given my sincere attention and regard. --Saukkomies ^talk 14:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good. In fact, the style I used is almost identical to that of journals in the field here like Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. For example, Emry and Korth (2001, J. Vert. Pal. 21:400) cite their 1996 paper as follows:

Emry, R. J., and W. W. Korth. 1996. The Chadronian squirrel "Sciurus" jeffersoni Douglass, 1901: a new generic name, new material, and its bearing on the early evolution of Sciuridae (Rodentia). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 16:775–780.

I used:

Emry, R.J. and Korth, W.W. 1996. The Chadronian "Sciurus" jeffersoni Douglass, 1901: a new generic name, new material, and its bearing on the early evolution of Sciuridae (Rodentia). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 16:775–780.

Apart from the link and some minor differences in the formatting of the names of the authors, it's the same. Perhaps you are familiar with different styles in the fields you worked in; I don't think any journal I know in this field gives the publisher for prominent journals such as the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, the exact date of publication, or the ISSN. The American Museum of Natural History publications gave the first names of authors in the past, but has stopped doing that. Ucucha 15:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the word "almost" must be accentuated in this description you gave. The Emry articles use the style of displaying a list of "Literature Cited" at the end of the paper, incorporating short parenthetical footnote references embodied within the text citing the various sources. This was indeed done in the Sciurini article. This is an entirely acceptable academic/professional style to use, and it is one that I myself have used (and have edited/proofread for others) in published articles. However, the Sciurini article didn't do that - or rather, it did that but then did something else.

The Sciuruini article used that style, but then also incorporated superscript footnote tags that referenced sources within a "References" section at the bottom of the page. This, too, is an entirely acceptable professional/academic style - and again, one I have used extensively. But the problem is that the Sciurini article used BOTH systems - which is definitely NOT considered kosher.

So here's what I saw when I looked at the Sciurini article - I saw a mess. It is an article that appeared to me to be the typical result in Wikipedia where multiple editors have gone through and added bits and pieces of data and citations willy-nilly, lacking a cohesive consistent style. The reason I came to that conclusion was because it used BOTH styles.

However, there still is the lack of any acknowledgement that perhaps you acted in haste to revert my entire day's worth of work because it didn't jibe with your sense of artistic style - even though it would have been entirely possible to have combined some of the references I'd made into your pre-existing style - had I but known it was a style in the first place. Apparently you seem unable to escape from whatever lofty tower they have you confined to in Cambridge to actually talk mano a mano with a paeon such as me, so I am now off to my other projects that I've put on hold while I was dallying with these squirrel articles that tantalized me for the past month. My efforts in these other fields are not met with the same blithering elitism that seems to prevail within the squirrel realm of Wikipedia - which is actually quite humorous, since it seems to me that such behavior might be possibly defined as "squirrely". :) --Saukkomies ^talk 20:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your first few points are true; the particular style I use, with short footnotes and long references in separate sections, is not common in the scientific literature. But I think it works best in the Wikipedia context. It is designed to be similar to standard parenthetical referencing, but because Wikipedia is intended for a general audience that probably is none too interested in refs in the middle of the text, so I put them a little bit down in ref tags. I have used this style with ease in many articles, and similar styles using templates like {{Harvnb}} are pretty common in Wikipedia articles.

You seem to be operating on the assumption that my revert yesterday was hasty or ill-considered. I am still convinced that it was not. You may have considered the article to have looked messy as it was there before, but as you made it it definitely was messy—it had a broken doi, stray commas, bad translations, and missing authors, among other things. That was coupled with an unwarranted change of style. I saw no reason not to revert such an edit. There are many people on Wikipedia, including myself, who make good-faith but sometimes misguided edits. I am happy to revert such edits of mine, if there is consensus or if someone convinces me that I am wrong. Ucucha 21:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And let me add to that: You really should stop it with the insinuations that I am somehow unable to accept anyone changing articles I write and that therefore I am some ivory-tower arrogant elitist unable (exaggerating a little here) to accept the possibility of sentient life outside Cambridge, Massachusetts. That insinuation is insulting. In fact, I feel bad every time I revert a good-faith edit, but I think it is unnecessary and counterproductive to involve such matters in a content dispute. What matters are the edits, not the persons making them. I have explained a few times why I did not and do not think your edits were a good idea, but there is no reason to make any more of that than that I did not think they were a good idea. Ucucha 21:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Margin readjusted) Okay, well, I haven't even checked this thread for a couple of days, since I've plunged back into working on some of the other Wiki stuff I've been neglecting while doing all the work lately in the Squirrel articles. But I wanted to set this down on record, since you continue to seem to not be understanding some of the facts of this case. First: I was not done editing those citation references. Some of the material I'd included did indeed turn out to be erroneous or broken, but I wanted to get the whole thing uploaded and then immediately (the following morning) go back through all the references and check everything for accuracy. I didn't do this in my Sandbox, which I normally do, and that was probably a mistake, but I've done this sort of thing in the past once in a while when pressed for time, and up to now it hasn't bitten me in the butt - my bad. At any rate, yes, you are correct: there were still a few bugs in some (very few) of those citations - but I planned on fixing them immediately.

However, you reverted my edit before I had a chance. And this is the kicker - you have not at any time here in this discussion made any attempt whatsoever to own up to the fact that you just reverted an entire day's work without any attempt at discussing with me why I did it or what you perceived as problematic with it. You just dumped my work in the trash, and have since made no attempt at assuming a diplomatic stance with me about it. You indicate above that you will revert edits you made if someone convinces me that I am wrong - but you refused to afford me the very courtesy that you seem to want: namely, having a discussion with me about why my edit needed to be reverted. Instead, you acted without any seeming regard for hurt feelings it would give to the author, since you've given no indication in this discussion that you felt the need to even have such a discussion with me.

What this boils down to is you've basically lost a dedicated editor (me) who was working a LOT (40+ hours per week) on the Squirrel articles, since there is no way I would want to have anything to do any further with an administrator such as yourself who seems to feel that you have a free license to run roughshod over people with no regard to their feelings or to the sense of dedication and respect they themselves might feel regarding the work they contribute to Wikipedia. And yet you seem to want others to treat you with the respect you do not accord to others. So way to go - you may know a lot about the technical aspects of All Things Sciuridae, but you have no idea about how to inspire editors who want to help with projects you're interested in. Or at least that seems to be my own experience. At any rate, as I stated before, I have other administrators who work very well with their editors, and whom I will stick with from now on - having no desire to put up with tyrants here. --Saukkomies ^talk 02:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Several things:

I am not sure why you bring up the fact that I am an admin. It has nothing to do with this issue, and should not; I never used any admin tools or brought up my adminship.
I should perhaps have added that I don't edit-war—if you had reinstated your changes, I wouldn't have reverted you. But the cycle is bold, revert, discuss, and for good reason: it's reasonable to keep the version before a disagreement begins while the disagreement is discussed.
Has it occurred to you that I also spent time getting the citations right in this article and that I have as much or as little right as you to get upset over my edits getting thrown out, without any regard for hurt feelings on my part? Ucucha 02:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has occurred to me - but only after I was made aware that you were the one who created them. As I've outlined above, I did not believe this article was organized into any coherent "style", but was a hodgepodge of various edits by various contributors, since it lacked any clear (to my initial impression) cohesiveness in the way the references were cited. The fact that you're an admin has a lot to do with this, because that indicates that you can block me from editing, and seeing how you reverted all that work I did without any attempt at discussing it beforehand, I would not put it past you to block me out of hand just because you don't like my tone. Being treated in this way by a run-of-the-mill Wiki editor would make it a lot less like "Big Brother" coming down on me - like it or not, your status as an admin makes a difference.

Now, I did NOT revert or delete ANY of your editing - all I did was to reorganize and ADD TO the pre-existing reference citations. You reverted all that work I did, effectively trashing it. These are two very different examples - I enhanced your work, you threw mine in the trash. You may not have the knowledge personally of why some of those fields I bothered to fill out in the citations have any use, but just because you don't have a clue as to what the OCLC number is or why it is so important does not give you the right to summarily eliminate it. The same holds true with authors' first names. Wikipedia is not a sophomore college thesis - it is a very important worldwide resource that is used by millions, and as such it should contain the highest level of citation content. Doing so will greatly assist people all around the world in doing research into various subjects, and being able to discern precisely between two authors easily because their first full names are included in citations is just one of the many things that we should be doing when we create citation references - in my opinion. I believe I told you I worked for many years as a reference librarian in an engineering library and other very seriously research-heavy institutions, and because of that I know a LOT - and I mean a HUGE LOT - about citations and what should be in them. Do not take the attitude that you can teach me anything about citations buddy - and instead you ought to be begging me to teach you. However, it ain't gonna happen, not with your attitude.

It is sad, because this all could have been avoided by your simply saying one simple thing: "Sorry I reverted your work." It's what I would have done. Actually, no, because I would NEVER revert someone's work without first talking to them about it. Enough said, you can make all the excuses in the world, but you still behaved in such a way that makes it clear to me that I would never want to waste another minute working on anything you felt like you had the right to revert at a drop of a hat - which is basically what you have indicated above. The greatest weakness in Wikipedia is its great need to attract and keep seriously scholarly and dedicated editors who will do a good job and try to improve articles. What you have done as an administrator for Wikipedia is the opposite: you blow serious scholars off by reverting their work without talking about it first. If I were you I'd seriously ponder the choice of how you go about doing things - because it truly sucks to be on the receiving end of your idea of how to behave as an admin. --Saukkomies ^talk 06:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Later edit: I read the Bold Revert Discuss page you listed, as well as the talk page associated with it, and it is obvious you're using the BRD as an excuse to do whatever you want (as is discussed at length in the talk page). --Saukkomies ^talk 06:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you thought I would be willing to block you over this affair, then I am sorry. For me to do so would be entirely inappropriate (not to say against the admin policy), and I can assure you that I never even thought of doing that.
I am also sorry that I felt the need to revert your work. I still think that revert is justified, however. I have explained a few times that I think the style I used works best in a Wikipedia entry, and I'll add that while first names are justified when references are generally more obscure (as may be the case in engineering), here the references were to prominent books and journals in the field, that no one should have any trouble finding. Ucucha 11:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What may be a prominent author in one field of study may not be known at all in another, and when someone is doing research for an author, having the full first names listed helps them to know not to pursue authors that are not whom they are looking for. To understand this, you have to think outside of your own narrow interests, and see the thing from a larger perspectice. Why remove additional citation information? It makes no sense - I took the time to dig it all up, I included it in the citations in a format that is entirely acceptable to Wikipedia (perhaps even I could go as far as to say it is the most acceptable format and style for Wikipedia), and you summarily removed all my work in its entirety without even talking to me about it. And that is why I'm angry - you are acting like you did no wrong here, but you did. How can I trust any claim you make as to how you would be fair in other ways when you are so blatantly unfair in this? You didn't need to revert the entire thing - we could have worked out a compromise, but that would have meant that you would have been willing to participate in a dialogue with me as a peer, not as some elitist admin that passed judgement and sentencing without any recourse or consideration for the amount of work on my part that you just dumped in its entirety for no real good reason other than your tender ego was hurt that someone had the temerity to do anything at all to change how one of your articles looked - at least that's how it seems to me. Again, a dialogue of peers, not the dictates of a tyrant, is what would have worked here. The reason I'm telling you this is because maybe you might learn from this and try to be more compassionate in the future in how you treat other editors who want to contribute their precious time to try to improve articles you have an interest in. --Saukkomies ^talk 17:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of Wikipedia citations is to provide verifiability, nothing more. Providing too much information dilutes the value of the important information—for example, in your version, the fact that the Mercer and Roth 2003 paper was published in Science gets lost in a flood of other information.

We are in a dialogue here on the contents; you give arguments, I give some too; your arguments are reasonable but I disagree with them, you appear to disagree with my arguments too. I hope we can stop it with the digressions on personal matters and focus on that dialogue. Ucucha 18:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see - you wish to participate in a dialogue. Well, too late - your actions speak louder than words, buddy. If you really want to have had a dialogue, you'd have done so first before summarily passing judgement and trashing my eight hours worth of work as if it was garbage. So now, because I won't get out of your face about it, you say you want to have a dialogue, but too bad - you should have thought of that before. I hope you are happy, because by your self-centered and egotistical action you've driven away someone who was trying to improve the articles you have an interest in - you could have done much better than you did, and in choosing to act in the way you did, you have lost a valuable editor. I'm now re-engaged in my other Wiki pursuits, and the squirrel articles can rot as far as I care, because I don't trust you - you carry too much weight in the squirrel world of Wikipedia, and if you want to trash my edits because of some whim on your part I cannot do a thing about it. You still, even now, absolutely refuse to own up to the fact that you blew it, which only further reinforces the image I have of you. So goodbye. You can reply all you want from now on, but I will no longer either read it or respond. --Saukkomies ^talk 22:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]