User talk:Ucucha/Archive8

Archives

Leave a new message

DYK for Cookie (cockatoo)

On December 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cookie (cockatoo), which you recently nominated. 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) 19:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Interdigital webbing

On December 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Interdigital webbing, 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) 19:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Oryzomys gorgasi

On January 4, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Oryzomys gorgasi, 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) 12:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You Have No Sense Of Humour Mr Exchange Student

Greetings from us Uncyclopedia folk.

Enjoy your Wikiality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.235.20.43 (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're at the wrong address. I'm not an exchange student. Best wishes, Ucucha 18:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit random. Zoo Pro 03:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha, I think you should prove your point by telling a really funny joke--remember the one about the Belgian in the Sahara carrying a car door? Drmies (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tuesday already? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The one with the airconditioned car? Ucucha 20:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclura nubila

I think I got everything, care to take a second look? Thanks!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not responding earler. I'll have a look tomorrow. Ucucha 21:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request

I elaborated on my oppose for SoWhy's RFB. Lara 20:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cuvier

Maybe I'm reading it wrong (almost 2 AM and my left eye is blind) but in the Cuvier source I'm reading the description as "Clouded Guana(sic)" and Clouded Lizard seems to be refering to "L. Nebulosa" (Lacerta?). I believe that is another species:[1]--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 09:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. In the actual description, they use "Clouded Guana" in the title of the section, but say "Clouded Lizard" for the image (linked in the article). I'll correct it. By the way, it might be nice to find the plate they are referring to in the original description. I can't find it on Google Books, but it looks like the one you linked to should be it, even though it doesn't entirely look like C. nubila. Ucucha 09:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I mean, it looks like another lizard altogether, like an Ameiva/racerunner/teid whatever from the mainland. I know Lacerta was thrown around arbitrarily for "lizard" back then, whereas today its strictly for Old World lizards. FYI on "clouds", "cloudy", etc:[2].--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 09:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, that may be what they were attempting to draw (a Cuban iguana)...it looks like a juvenile with no spines, rings yet, feet/legs are ok but the headshape is totally wrong.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 10:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the description, they say it is under "Clouded Lizard L. nebulosa", which is what the plate says. But if it's such a bad image, it's probably best not to use it anyway.

As for "clouds", looks like you are right and my dictionary isn't. However, I think we should only mention the meaning that is meant in the name of the lizard; we don't mention either that "nubila" can also mean "dark, gloomy". Do your sources go into detail on this? Ucucha 10:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what struck me as wrong about the image was that the tail wasn't banded as in the images on the C. nubila page. Not sure whether that is expected in juveniles though. Ucucha 10:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it can also mean "gray" too. It's funny reading the link you posted, as 2 species they identified as Cyclura then are actually identified as Ctenosaura today. I've seen Lacerta as an archaic term for Iguana but don't think I've ever seen it applied to Cyclura, Ctenosaura, etc. Nebulosa seems to be used more often as "clouded", I think that's the specific on the clouded leopard. Yeah the tail looks like it would on one less than a year old, but I have never seen any Cyclura with a head shaped like that, I thought skink or teid, first.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 10:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genera were always much broader at the time than now; I guess Lacerta was probably originally intended to cover all lizards or something close.

I believe nebulosa more precisely means "misty" (and also metaphorically "opaque"). But what we should want in the article is what nubila was intended to mean, which I can't really find from the sources. From what I can see, neither the IUCN nor the Hollingsworth book you cite explicitly mention the etymology. Ucucha 10:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Shikkoku no Sharnoth: What a Beautiful Tomorrow

I have responded to your inquiries about the DYK. Thank you for considering it as a candidate. --Remy Suen (talk) 11:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your second comment. It seems my original assumptions about establishing notability were all off the mark. --Remy Suen (talk) 12:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Say you wouldn't be able to get a copy of....

this paper? I'd be madly grateful as I am working up Banksia sphaerocarpa and Banksia verticillata.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look in your mailbox :). I was somewhat confused about the mannal vectors, though. Ucucha 07:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I was surprised to see such a typo in a peer-reviewed article page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is in the digitalization, actually. The title of the PDF article does say "mammal". Still, I can imagine the manna coming down from Heaven and pollinating the Banksias. :) Ucucha 09:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black-winged Starling.

I had to think about this one. The Bali Starling is listed as critically endangered, now. At the time that the Black-winged was considered a potential threat (the paper I quoted cites opinions from the late 80s) it was only listed as threatened (the listing was changed in 1994). It probably was critically endangered by modern standards, but at the time it was described as threatened, so that is what I put. I think on balance that since the hook is about what people were thinking at that period of time that we should use the status used at that time as well. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then-threatened suggests that it is no longer threatened, which would probably suggest to many people that its situation has improved. Since threatened is used in IUCN parlance to describe anything falling between extinct and near-threatened, I think that threatened is acceptable in this instance. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh?

Gelukkig nieuwjaar, muis! Ik hoop dat jouw HEMA-oliebollen net zo goed waren als de mijne--en dat waren de eerste oliebollen in vijftien jaar. Pais en vree! Drmies (talk) 07:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ich war in Deutschland und da gab es gar keine Oliebollen. Wel sneeuw, maar ook niet zo veel. Happy New Year! Ucucha 21:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welkom thuis. (!) Hope your new semester is off to a good start. Drmies (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet - we have an extended winter break here till late January. But it'll undoubtedly be fine. Lots of articles to write. :) Ucucha 19:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While we poor schmucks in the South are at it already. Hey, some articles could really use your help; if you ever get done with mannals (or mammals, either way--and Mannals are threatened with extinction, I read), maybe you can help expand Neblina! I did as much as I could. Which reminds me...did you bring me some goodies??? Drmies (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That article has the wrong content. It should be about a mountain in southern Venezuela (Cerro Neblina) which brought us the opossum Marmosops neblina and, even more importantly, the rodent Rhipidomys wetzeli.

No, I prefer Leidse kaas, a link that inexcusably is still red. Perhaps a worthier topic than that opossum-usurping band. Ucucha 20:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<--That was a beautiful chain you made. I used to think that I had a. a Dutch proverb and b. a quote from the Beastie Boys for every conceivable occasion; you have rats that can occupy every twist and turn of an argument. I am impressed, and as a token of my appreciation I have taken care of the redlink you hate so much (it was a very small token, fortunately for me). Drmies (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, that is an astonishingly beautiful mountain. Drmies (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you're right. Surprising that Leyden is still the common English spelling in this context, but Google suggests it is right. Beautiful it certainly is--those biologists know where they go looking for new mammals! Ucucha 21:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Sankranthi#Requested_move

Answered your query. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Member states or Member States

I realise that the discussion on the requested moves I proposed at Talk:Member State of the European Union#Requested move diverged from the original proposal, but I do think there was sufficient support and logic to use lowercase "member states" in the article titles and for the moves as proposed for them to be effected.

I guess we can leave debate on moving the first of this pages to something like Membership of the European Union for another day. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 01:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there was support; from what I can see, you and Boson agreed and JLogan, SSJ and an IP disagreed or at least leaned towards disagreeing. I don't think the arguments against were so weak as to be discounted; for example, no supporter refuted the parallel to the U.S. state article. Ucucha 07:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oryzomys

Hi Ucucha, in the Oryzomys update of list of mammals/Cricetidae, is albescens or albiventer ? Regards Burmeister (talk) 12:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mixed that up a few times. It is albiventer. Ucucha 16:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RM talk

Thanks for fixing the link. You beat me to it. I sometimes hit the submit button when I am trying to hit the preview button. --Una Smith (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I might have been a bit too fast in jumping there from my watchlist. Ucucha 22:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you deserve this...

		The Main Page Barnstar
		For all your hard work at WP:ERRORS. Thanks for proving my !vote in your RfA was justified ;-)! HJMitchell You rang? 23:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :-) Ucucha 09:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crewdson

Thanks for your comment. I ve tried to address your point. The DYK suggestions page says ":Its a fair point. The quote does say that it was happening anyway. The article makes it clear that the start" of the problems was four years before. What could be said is that the book "triggered a split...", if you want to suggest a form of words that finesses the meaning then fine. Victuallers (talk) 10:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)"[reply]

Please feel free to improve the article or hook Victuallers (talk) 10:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Already replied on the DYK page. Thanks for commenting. Ucucha 10:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rattus rattus image

Hi. Are you serious in your opinion that the original 300px black blob without any detail (and wrong aspect ratio as well, if I am not completely mistaken) gives a better idea of the body and head structure of a roof rat? The original picture is absolutely worthless in my opinion, since it does not show any details whatsoever. This was the only reason for me to upload an alternative with higher resolution. I do not care that much about it, so the old picture can stay if it makes you happier, but I still disagree with you. --Kilessan (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether this makes me happier; let's have a discussion on the images themselves instead. I think the current image is much better than a "black blob without any detail": it does in fact show the rat's head in pretty good detail. Yours, on the other hand, hardly shows the animal's head if used in the taxobox. This is mainly because of the low resolution for the taxobox lead image, which makes much of the detail disappear that is visible when your picture is viewed at full resolution. I added the two pictures here at the resolutions in which they appear in the taxobox to clarify this point.

That said, I don't think the current picture is ideal either, mainly because it doesn't show the full animal. It's regrettable that there are so few good pictures of the black rat on Commons, and surprising for such a common animal. Ucucha 22:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not claim that my picture is perfect, actually it is far from it. It is dark and was taken at high ISO, therefore it is noisy. The critters are also not that easy to photograph, actually (let's just say they do not pose for the photographer) and I did not have hours to spend trying. You are right that the old version does emphasize the head more. But: it is blurry, and one does not see many details in the taxobox version either (apart from eyes and ears everything is just a black shadow). Also it shows more or less only the critter's head, and I am still quite sure the aspect ratio is off. However, I did not realise that the taxobox is supposed to show mainly the head of an animal. I always thought the whole critter (including its body structure) should be shown.

I have noticed that you included both versions in the article now. I think that would indeed be the best solution all things considered. Regards --Kilessan (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to imply that "the taxobox is supposed to show mainly the head of an animal", but this is an important part of the animal. The old image is far from ideal, but I think it shows more of the black rat's features at this resolution. It also shows the forefeet, snout, and head form. Perhaps a solution would be for you to crop the picture to show just the rat's body; we can miss a bit of tail if it'll enable us to see the rat's body more clearly. When viewed at full size, your image does show the animal's important features well. Ucucha 22:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure this is the best solution, since the long tail (significantly longer than that of e.g. Rattus norvegicus) is also a distinctive feature of Rattus rattus. I think that for the moment the best solution would be to leave both pictures, one for the taxobox and one in the article. If I find a different picture which I can crop differently, I will upload it, but I would rather not mutilate the current one. --Kilessan (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only other usable rattus picture I have is this one. Less noise, but not the whole body visible. Maybe usable anyway. --Kilessan (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a trade-off, of course. You may lose the tail length feature, but you can show more of the body.

I like your second picture pretty well. It shows everything the existing picture shows and more. But perhaps you can improve the coloration a little by increasing the contrast, as it looks rather bland now?

Over the next days, I'll try to expand the black rat article, which really is a shame at its current length, so we'll be able to get them all in the article. Ucucha 09:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have adjusted the black level a bit. The picture should have a higher perceived contrast now. Hopefully it is enough; I would rather not overdo it since one quickly loses detail in the black fur. --Kilessan (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much better, thanks! Ucucha 19:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[shifting left] My pleasure. Expanding the article would be really great. Though unfortunately I cannot offer more help I'm afraid, since I don't have any literature on Black Rats (and thus my knowledge is rather limited).--Kilessan (talk) 09:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Air Rwanda DYK

Hi, in relation to Template_talk:Did_you_know#Air_Rwanda, I have now added the inline citation for the particular statement. I hope this helps with verification of the article for DYK. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 22:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Swazi Airways

Hi again, in regards to my nomination at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Royal_Swazi_National_Airways I have amended the hook to remove mention of "scheduled". I hope this helps for verification of the article at DYK. Cheers, --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 22:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond hook still up

I think you might've reverted to the wrong version.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. It is gone now, sorry for the confusion. I was quite sure I edited the current version, but it looks like I didn't. Ucucha 11:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Immigration to Pakistan

Could you please tell me if the hook from subjected article going to publish in DYK soon? --Saki ^talk 17:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It will go up, don't worry. It can take anywhere from a day to a week, perhaps even more, but it'll go up. Patience is an important virtue at DYK. Ucucha 17:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs

While I appreciate your efforts in creating new articles, stubs with so little content as Apodemus epimelas can hardly be considered useful. Could you please consider creating more complete pages instead? Ucucha 18:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you say that. Other people create far more empty stubs than me every day. Look at Masanobu Izumi and Yunnanilus tigerivinus.Starzynka (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user's talk page. Ucucha 16:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Degu; Spermophilus

Can you add a proper description to degu, with all the details of its skeletal morphology? I've started one, and I'll work on this and on a distribution section, but I don't understand a good deal of the anatomical terms used in the Mammalian Species paper I've been using as a reference. If I get the green light on using the exact taxonomy from the Spermophilus paper, I'll post the split on all the Spermophilus articles. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll assume that I can follow Helgen et al.'s exact taxonomy: if I'm wrong leave a note at my talk page, so that I can notice it quickly. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at the degu. I guess hystricomorph anatomical terms won't be that different from the ones for sigmodontines. Yes, I think you should use the exact taxonomy of the Helgen et al. paper. They make three changes in species-level taxonomy as compared to MSW 3: one is elevating some American subspecies to species level, one is elevating Spermophilus pygmaeus from somewhere in Eurasia to species level, and one is Spermophilus taurensis. (I am sorry for not responding earlier - I unexpectedly didn't have internet access for the last few weeks.) Ucucha 20:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go with ground quirrels rather than chipmunks or dormice, and I've completed the first stage of updating the Spermophilus articles: see Spermophilus. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 02:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for those ground squirrels, you got the Helgen taxonomy mixed up (exactly reversed in each case); and your list of mammals includes several additional species, mostly in the Old World. I'm going to work on them some more once I get some things done with sparrows, including having Chestnut Sparrow reviewed for GA (are you interested?). I thought you might like to know that the reference style you created for the Oryzomyini is sure getting around—I've started using it by default for pages I work on (Bananaquit, for example). —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 03:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I may have gotten some things mixed up here in writing without checking - I am sorry. Just believe Helgen et al. instead of me. I now saw that the species Helgen et al. split off is Ictidomys parvidens and they did not elevate S. pygmaeus, but synonymize S. musicus under it. Spermophilus brevicauda and Spermophilus pallidicauda were recognized in MSW 3 but not earlier, which is why Polbot didn't like them enough to write articles about them. Good luck with the sparrows! Ucucha 08:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Various more taxonomy related-things: (Note: In order to update your list to Helgen et al., all you need to do is remove these Sparmophilus species: brevicauda, pallidicauda, ralli, the last being a redirect). I'll add genus articles, update species articles etc, soon. Here's another taxonomy change: according to the IUCN's entry (written in 2008), "Happold (in press)" has merged all the members of Tachyoryctes except macrocephalus into one, a treatment earlier considered by Kingdon. "Happold (in press)" is available online, but it is in Russian. I'd been planning to give some basic expansion to the articles for this genus, and request a big move to the scientific names, but this rather changes things. Do you think we should merge the Tachyoryctes species? (the IUCN does say "Additional studies are needed into the taxonomy of this species"). —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to look now, but I believe that when I looked at Helgen et al. earlier today, they listed brevi and pallidi as valid species of Spermophilus.

Happold (in press) may refer to Happold and Happold (in press) listed in the bibliography there, which is in a new book on the mammals of Africa. I saw your edit at Tachyoryctes earlier today and was rather surprised by this taxonomic development. It seems so out of time--synonymizing twelve species in a single stroke is not what is generally done anymore, and although there has been very little taxonomic research on Tachyoryctes, it seems to be to a large extent a group of fossorial mountain-dwellers, both of which would rather cause me to expect more, not less diversity. Besides, T. ruddi and T. ankoliae have actually been found in sympatry according to Musser and Carleton and there seem to be rather big size differences within "T. splendens". Whether we should follow it, I am not sure--I would say this is somewhat unlikely to get accepted, but on the other hand we are sometimes considering the Red List as an authority on taxonomic matters. Ucucha 23:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying on this matter. All that I remember as for Spermophilus is that I checked Helgen's species list and found it almost matched the one that was already there, after which I made the corrections. As for the Tachyoryctes, I remember seeing a two-species taxonomy, and explanation of the evolutionary situation of Tachyoryctes based on one, in one of Jonathan Kingdon's books (not one of his monographs or East Africa field gudes, Island Africa?) I'll have to look at one of his books to get a perspective on the matter. Regardless of which taxonomy we use the current and presumably the future red lists will use the two-species taxonomy, so that is one source out for expanding these articles. Here's another thing I thought I'd ask you about (before I bring it up at the mammal project): I've been noticing that the use capitals in species names can be really inconsistent. I've been going through the rodent portion of your list of mammals, looking for misnamed and unassessed articles, and I came across Ratufa. I think that the sort of capitalisation used here is far too inconsistent and potentially confusing. I think we need a guideline that groups of animals (except fish etc, for which no caps is agreed upon, and birds etc, vice versa) at order or family level use the same capitalisation in article names. I really don't care what is used, but this inconsistency within small groups probably is the worst option. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

now I've noticed your comments at rock squirrel and thirteen-lined ground squirrel. What do you think now? It looks like we need a real rule here—one or the other; and it seems it will be lowercase. Now you know my real opinion on the matter. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent, because this may get long - I could as well give my full opinion here as anywhere else.)

I think Musser and Carleton explain the situation in Tachyoryctes rather well ([3]). The main point for me is whether Happold's merger is based on a re-examination of the evidence or on further hit-and-run lumping, which we can't know until the book has been published. I checked Helgen et al. and they do list brevicauda, pallidicauda (both p. 288) and ralli (p. 289) as valid species, though ralli remains nomenclaturally problematic (cf. MSW 3).

The consistency we're looking for will never be total--at any rate, I expect fish to remain sentence case and birds title case. But the point you're making about lower-level consistency is a good one, and yes, we may think about achieving some sort of consistency for rodents. Like you, I don't especially care either way, but don't think it's an exceptionally good idea to have most ground squirrels in title case and a few in sentence.

I think the main arguments we should be looking for should derive from usage: what do the people who use these names outside of Wikipedia use? I am less convinced by more abstract arguments; if they were strong enough, I think scientists would have headed them. In the Wikipedia capitalization discussions, I know of two fairly detailed usage studies--one at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cetaceans#Capitalisation and the other at Talk:Snow_Leopard#Secondary_and_Tertiary_Sources_on_Capitalization. Both concluded that sentence case is decidedly more common. That's also what I argued at Talk:Rock squirrel and Talk:Thirteen-lined ground squirrel.

I think we can accept for a fact that where there is a well-established vernacular name, it is usually overwhelmingly written in sentence case. However, where there is no well-established vernacular name, as in the oryzomyines I mostly write about, it's usually written in title case, because that is what the only sources to use these names (the Red List, Duff & Lawson, and MSW 3) do. I'm somewhat unwilling to use sentence case there, because that would create a name that has never been used outside Wikipedia, which is essentially the same reason why I argued at Talk:Spermophilus taurensis that the vernacular name should be sentence case. I could probably argue that it is a sign that a vernacular name has entered common usage when it is commonly written in sentence case (there are some exceptions, though).

With this reasoning, I think most or all rodents that shouldn't be at the scientific name (which probably excludes about 80% of the total) should be at the sentence-case version of their vernacular name. I think it's most in the line with the way our naming conventions are generally set up: use the name your readers would expect, considering how common the different candidates are and consistency. Ucucha 08:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got that, as to the Spermophilus and Tachyoryctes. My error was caused by the mention of "eleven" species in the paper, and my presumable stopping in the section on sensu stricto at the eleventh. I quite agree with you as far as consistency goes, but how does one determine which capitalisation should be used for a particular group?, and how to go about moving 50 or more species at a time? (that would make a bit of a splash at requested moves). (Another thing worth noting was that my wish was for consistency at the class level—probably will be impossible, but order / family level is possible). At the ground squirrel articles, you argued that sentence case is more common. However, I've seen title case as often or more often for species such as the Thirteen-lined ground squirrel and Richardson's Ground Squirrel. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 15:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another question for you: Do you think I'm making a too liberal interpretation of the rodent project's importance criteria by assessing Castoroides ohioensis and Japanese Squirrel as mid-importance? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 15:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When we achieve consensus at the WP:RODENT level for such a move, we could reasonably bypass RM, or alternatively do a mass RM like the one at Talk:Oryzomys couesi. It shouldn't be a big problem, though it'll take time to achieve consistency. I think consistency at the class level is too much to ask now; Cetacea seems about to move to sentence case now, but I don't see that happening for Primates. But we can try to at least get rodents consistent. It's not as important as expanding and correcting the many stubs, but it'll be an improvement.

As for the capitalization, I noted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cetaceans that there is a split in usage between title and sentence case, with title case mostly used in field guides and headings. I looked through Google Scholar and Books results for "thirteen-lined ground squirrel", and that confirmed that observation: Of the first 100 Scholar results, only a few were title case and most were sentence case. In Books, the picture was more mixed, but prose almost exclusively uses sentence case and title case mostly occurs in field guides and headings. If this is so, we should prefer sentence case for the same reasons we don't use title case for things like "List of rodents". But the premise underlying my preference for sentence case is that it is more usual in the literature; if that premise turns out to be false, my preference will also change. I get the impression that title case is more prevalent in Australia, though perhaps still not more prevalent than sentence case.

On the importance, I'd be inclined to say "low" for the Japanese Squirrel (or squirrel?) as it isn't really especially known outside of a specialist audience; it's just another squirrel, really. For Castoroides, I am less sure, as I don't know how well-known it really is, but "mid" seems reasonable. Ucucha 17:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. The only thing I feel I have a reason to respond about is the Japanese Squirrel. My assessment was in regard to its commonality and familiarity in Japan, equal to that of the Red Squirrel in Britain. It would be known to a non-specialist audience, but only regionally (ditto for the extinct Castoroides, actually). —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll first have to say that while I created the RODENT importance classes, that was just because the standard ones seemed so vague as to be useless, and I created something that seemed reasonable. But someone who actually does lots of these assessments probably has clearer ideas about it than I do. My advice is just my advice. You make a good point, and though I could raise some counterpoints, they're not that persuasive and the point isn't very important anyway, so let's let it stand.

As for the capitalization, I asked Aranae to comment here, so we may have some further input on how to proceed. Ucucha 20:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I have been so slow to reply. It's great to see Spermophilus getting split up. I agree with going with Helgen et al.'s taxonomy, because there really hasn't been much in the way of modification since then and they were very thorough. It was a really nice paper actually. Am I correct in understanding that the plan is to merge most of what is at Spermophilus now into ground squirrel and make Spermophilus deal with Spermophilus s.s? As for Tachyoryctes I'm inclined to favor Ucucha's argument. If I were to venture a guess as to what is happening here, it's that new data are emerging, or a reanalysis of data is leading the author to refute most of the given species definition of the genus. I'm with Ucucha. There's almost no way we've drastically overestimated the diversity in this fossorial taxon. All life history parameters point towards underestimates. My guess is this is the author declaring the current species boundaries so far wrong that there was no way to propose anything that wasn't provably incorrect and so subsuming huge numbers of taxa with the caveat that it's merely a stopgap until someone can successfully do something with them. This is basically what Musser and Carleton (1993) did when they merged all of the Muroidea into the Muridae. My inclination is to wait until the actual paper/book chapter merging all these species comes out before taking action. I think all the Red List can tell us is that a publication is coming which does this, but people often jump the gun when using "in press" and this change might not survive the editorial/review process, it might be vocally opposed immediately, etc. That said Happold certainly has a good reputation - this isn't a marginal figure doing this. Still, I think caution is in order and I'd vote to wait on synonymizing all of these at least until this in press publication becomes available. I know you both wanted my opinion on capitalization perhaps most of all, but the truth remains that I am still quite neutral on the topic. I'm kind of with Innotata in merely preferring consistency if we can get it. I like the idea of a WP:Rodents adopting an opinion. I think that's actually possible and I will back any consensus that emerges. I had been leaning toward capitalizing, but that was primarily because I felt that the community had been leaning that way based on some major players (most notable UtherSRG) and that seemed to be the least messy option. These editors arent as active anymore and are particularly not active in the rodent project. Overall, lowercase is much more common, but capital is becoming more common and may represent the future (or may be a passing fad). I think a valid argument could be made for either. I'll probably rally behind the winning side to try and help bring it to some sort of close. I actually suspect it will be lowercase. I'm not sure who's left among the more active WP:Rodents members. WolfmanSF or Degutopia, maybe? I suspect Wolfman favors lowercase. --Aranae (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back. I have no problem with the delay; no one needs to be at Wikipedia all the time. I agree with all you're saying on Spermophilus and Tachyoryctes, except that I think the argument for lumping everything into Muridae is from Carleton and Musser 1984.

Regarding capitalization, I think if there's anything we three agree on it's that we don't care much, and the second thing is that we'd prefer to see some sort of consistency in rodent pages. I think we should prefer what is most used right now over what may be getting more common, and by all estimates I've seen sentence case is more common. I am not entirely convinced that title case is getting more common (which would be a difficult thing to prove at any rate); it was already used nearly a century ago by Goldman (cited in Nephelomys pirrensis), and I think the split in usage I described above and at the cetaceans project's talk page explains much of the variation in usage.

The best thing to do now may be going to WT:RODENT and asking for confirmation that we agree on using one convention for article titles (with a slight preference for sentence case from me, as I explained). I also believe WolfmanSF favors sentence case (he created Moojen's pygmy rice rat, for example), and so does Degutopia, who hasn't been active in about a month however. Ucucha 19:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely correct on it being Carleton and Musser 1984. That's actually part of why in my earliest days of editing I had such a hard time convincing people to adopt some of the changes that would ultimately come in MSW3 (not yet published), but were being used in the primary literature (such as Steppan et al., 2004). Steppan et al. weren't actually disagreeing MSW2, it's just that Musser and Carleton had decided to tentatively lump them in the absence of any better ideas. Unfortunately for me those arguments were in the 1984 book chapter. ~~Now if only the French wikipedia would get on board.~~ As for being emergent, it's only in the last decade where these comprehensive checklist type of books have come out where they actually attempt to use a common name for all species. They are the strongest real argument for capitalization. Still, I think even MSW3 is inconsistent across chapters in how it capitalizes common names when used in actual sentences. Plus I ran into a situation a while back (not sure if I could find it again) where papers in a journal used lowercase, but the new instructions to authors adopted initial letter capital rules. That was part of when I stopped arguing for lowercase and started going with the flow around here since it looked like something that might be catching on. --Aranae (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take back what I said about the French as they seem to have entered the zips. --Aranae (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying on this matter. In regards to Spermophilus, you were quite correct with my plans, though I'm getting some new ideas—maybe I'll add an article on the subtribe Marmotiina, though this will all take some time whatever I do. In regards to capitalisation, I think that since the only opinions here are ours—don't care, should be consistent—or else strong, strong support of lowercase, as at Talk:Indian giant squirrel, we should use sentence case for rodent articles. However, there are a few problems, as title case is used most frequently for certain groups of rodents: Australian ones and obscure ones, as Ucucha pointed out. So I think we should make a few exceptions. I'll bring up the matter at WT:RODENT, with links from WT:MAMMAL and WT:Naming conventions (fauna), since there are very few people participating in the WikiProject as of yet (though I think I'll try to find some more users who may be interested soon). —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 01:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aranae: MSW 3 is certainly a big argument for capitalization, but I don't know now of any place where they actually use species common names in the text. The IUCN actually often uses sentence case in the text (cf. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cetaceans). That's similar to what I see in Emmons and Feer 1997 (title case in headings, sentence case in text and captions) and even the recent description of Reithrodontomys musseri, which uses title case in a heading, but sentence case in the text for the proposed vernacular name "Musser's harvest mouse". But perhaps we'd better say these things at WT:RODENT now. I replied there, and we'll see what it brings.

I have a nice ground squirrel question: which species is shown in the picture to the right? It was labeled a Rock Vole (Microtus chrotorrhinus), which seems off. But my Kays and Wilson is currently at the other side of the ocean, so I can't commment much. Ucucha 08:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to venture a guess on ground squirrels without knowing the geography. If pushed I might lean toward Columbian, though the lighting in this photo causes the reddish tint to show up more prominently than the ones already in that article. --Aranae (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does look similar, and I also suspect the coloration may be doing weird things. I asked at Commons if we could get the photo's origin. Ucucha 17:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not weighing in on the ID here. Yes, I'm inclined to believe they are Columbian ground squirrels and they almost certainly are not earstern ground squirrels of any sort. As for those babirusa names, it surprisingly seems on closer examination you are right. Why not make a multiple requested move thing, as this may be controversial? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the babirusas, I actually didn't find it that surprising--they're recently recognized species, after all, without much chance to get a standardized common name. I'll probably start an RM soon. Ucucha 21:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know: one would think some newly recognised allopatric species of insular large animal would have decent names. I was going to ask you if you were planning some Oryzomyini-related good or featured topic, when I found the featured topic template you added to your project page. Good luck with that one! I'm trying to make a good topic myself, for the sparrow genus Passer (the House Sparrow and the like). —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 15:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose Meijaard and Groves don't have such good PR people as the people who split up Neofelis nebulosa did. Good luck with Passer! It's a pretty big genus, so it'll certainly keep you busy for a while. Yes, it would be nice if Oryzomyini would one day be a featured topic, but it's not going to happen soon, with about thirty genera (and more to come) which all need to be GAs or FAs. Some of the genera may become FTs somewhat sooner, though—Holochilus would be a nice continuation of my previous FAs, and Oryzomys already has some decent articles (though no GAs or FAs). But my next FA nomination is probably going to be something completely different: Trachylepis atlantica. There are still a few offline sources I'll have to look up and some descriptive stuff I have to include, but otherwise it's going well. Ucucha 15:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]