User talk:WolfmanSF/Archive5

Archives

• WolfmanSF/Archive1
• WolfmanSF/Archive2
• WolfmanSF/Archive3
• WolfmanSF/Archive4
• WolfmanSF/Archive5
• WolfmanSF/Archive6
• WolfmanSF/Archive7
• WolfmanSF/Archive8

---

Leave a new message

---

Humans

So I am in process of adding humans to each regional list. Some lists had humans listed before I started, some didn't. Either we take them all out or add it to all the lists. My preference is to add since humans are in fact mammals and populated the world under their/our own means.....Pvmoutside (talk) 06:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The addition of humans is noninformative and pointless; everyone already knows humans are everywhere. Nearly everyone understands the mammals species lists to be lists of nonhuman mammals. WolfmanSF (talk) 06:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not really pointless. It helps people better understand how humans fit in the classification system, and that humans are part of the natural world........Would be nice to be consistent with the info, but apparently that is no going to happen......The beauty of Wikipedia is it usually leaves little for interpretation and tries to explain thinks comprehensively, I guess except in this case......For me, it's really not worth the fight. You win. I'll stop adding humans to every list. So Have fun keeping up with eliminating humans on lists as others add it. I hope you stay on top of it for the long run. It does look kind of foolish and incomplete with humans listed on some lists and not others, but apparently you are OK with it.......I guess us humans are better than all the rest of the mammmals in the world and are too good to be listed.....Pvmoutside (talk) 09:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Which lists include humans? Thanks, WolfmanSF (talk) 10:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Besides the ones I did so far-United States, Alaska, North America, and Saskatchewan....Pvmoutside (talk) 11:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can see, North America has had humans from 2007-02-02 (the start), Alaska since 2007-11-21, Canada since 2010-03-27, Saskatchewan since 2008-08-14 and Georgia since 2013-06-10, and in most of these cases the lists have idiosyncratic styles and the additions were made by major contributors. I'm not going to object too strongly to this situation. There is no one completely obvious answer to which species should be included in mammals lists, and no one style that is best in all respects. Diversity can be good. However, absent some kind of consensus obtained following a discussion, the idea that humans need to be added to all mammal lists I do object to, for the reasons that the presence of humans everywhere is already very well known, and that the lists are usually viewed as being of "wild" mammals, which humans generally are not. Also, the question as to where humans qualify as a "native" species is problematic. So, my inclination is to revert your recent additions. Do you have any further comments on this subject? WolfmanSF (talk) 07:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

As you can see my recent contributions list, I corrected the taxonomy of humans in a lot of these lists (sometimes not fully), however, I didn't add them to the list articles that didn't have them. I'm fine with seeing them removed. Both of you have good points. Anyway, my contribution list might help in tracking a lot of these articles down. – Maky ^« talk » 07:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems odd that you are finding ways to use arguments to justify leaving Humans in articles not edited by me.......If those articles list them, then they all should-or none of them should. And what do you mean by major contributor? Are you saying those editors are, but I'm not? Seems pretty elitist to me. Humans populating the world is no more problematic than House Mice and Norway Rats, and they are listed on most lists. Your argument that diversity is a good thing. I agree, unless it provides inaccurate information. So Alaska has humans and Massachusetts does not according to the current version of the regional lists. Just because humans were added in 2007 makes it OK, but not OK if it was added in 2014? So if innacurate information was rovided in 2007 its OK to leave it, and if someone tries to correct it in 2015 it should be reverted?...Your only good point is most everyone recognizes humans to be cosmopolitan. Luckily, the regional lists are not looked at very much, so taking the time to fight about this not worth the time...Have fun making the lists inconsistent ......Pvmoutside (talk) 06:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

If consistency is important to you, why don't "we" (you, me or whoever) take them out of all the lists? The fact is, the lists are inconsistent in a number of ways; some list extinct species from the early Holocene, some don't, the treatment of introduced species is not consistent, and there are various differences in style. As you know, they were all originally set up without humans, and that was a choice, not an oversight. I'm well aware that you are the one that added humans to North America at the start, and I haven't complained about that. The few other additions that occurred (until recently) that I know about occurred later and many of these were probably inspired by North America. WolfmanSF (talk) 07:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll go through the list I edited early and remove humans now. Had I known about this issue earlier, I would have removed them when I was cleaning up the primate stuff a few days back. – Maky ^« talk » 08:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks like you beat me to it. – Maky ^« talk » 08:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Leaving humans off the regional lists it is then, although I disagree.....It does look foolish to me without it, I must admit.....Pvmoutside (talk) 12:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

One might similarly argue that we should have feral dogs and cats included in most lists. On some islands, they are a critical part of the ecosystem, threatening other species with extinction. In general, however, I don't think it would be useful. WolfmanSF (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Moving species articles from Latin names to obscure common names

So I saw the note regarding use of obscure common names. I have a reference using the common name (Mammal Species of the World). You mention the common name referenced is obscure, yet they are often referenced in the article. Wikipedia under WP:COMMONNAME states to reference the most common name for the species. If there is only one, then the choice is obvious? In the case of the Gray Rice Rat it is also referenced as such by EOL and IUCN....seems like a few creditable sources to me.....Pvmoutside (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

MSW3 has a common name for every species. If there isn't any common name in general use, they make up one. That is basically what they're doing for all the "common names" that are based on the Latin genus name. The scientific Latin name is a more appropriate article title in such cases. WP:COMMONNAME does not favor the use of obscure "common names" of species over Latin names as far as I can see. WolfmanSF (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

What about if a common name is listed on the IUCN Red List and The Enclyclopedia of Life. I followed the discussion on Euryoryzomys macconnelli from 2009. It now appears that the IUCN and Encyclopedia of Life have a common name for it, same with gray rice rat. The cites that are used to argue no common name are scientific articles that usually use only scientific names. At some point, if a common name becomes established, and I would argue IUCN and Encyclopedia of Life are pretty established references, then the name should be changed to common name, since Wikiproject Mammals follows common name protocol by consensus. I suppose it can be changed (like the butterfly and plant projects, as all their species are titled with scientific names....Pvmoutside (talk) 12:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I would not object in such a case. However, in these instances I would hesitate to make the change, out of respect for User:Ucucha. WolfmanSF (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate that....I certainly would not want to alienate or discourage him, but a discussion can probably be had....Pvmoutside (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Size rounding

This has got to be settled. You have multiple times reverted edits by commons WP:Dino editors on dinosaur articles regarding the rounding a significant figures of sizes. I do not intend to sound harsh, but an agreement has to be made. The main reverts I see are on Deinocheirus, where you have been reverted and reverted back. The Nature paper that concerns the sizes you rounded specifically states that the weight was an estimated 6.358 metres (20.86 ft). You insist to round it to 6.4 m. This might follow the policy you are referencing, but there are reasons to keep the estimate true and honest. The precision is not false, as nowadays, it is possible to get that accurate of an estimate by extrapolating the sizes of various related dinosaurs and modern animals. This is increasingly easier the more material is known, and Deinocheirus is known from two nearly complete skeletons that combine with partial overlapping skeleton. Therefore, I think precision is acceptable, and the number should be rounded to no less than the hundredths. IJReid ^discuss 02:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

We're talking about the difference between 6.358 and 6.4 tonnes, I believe. That represents a difference of about 0.7%. Given that we haven't actually weighed a single individual of this species, we can't possibly know the weight of a given specimen to better than 1% accuracy. We don't know everything about muscle and fat distribution, size of the digestive system, etc. Additionally, if you weigh yourself, you know that your own weight can fluctuate by more than 1% on a daily basis. Big dinosaurs would have been no different.

Also, let's consider the origin of the value we're talking about. The Lee et al. Nature paper, "Resolving the long-standing enigmas of a giant ornithomimosaur Deinocheirus mirificus", gives the mass value for the MPC-D 100/127 specimen of 6,358 kg and they cite the PLOS Biology paper by Benson et al., "Rates of Dinosaur Body Mass Evolution Indicate 170 Million Years of Sustained Ecological Innovation on the Avian Stem Lineage" as the source of that. But the Benson et al. paper doesn't even have that value, as far as I can see. They don't mention Deinocheirus in the actual paper. They do have a compendium of body size measurements in their supplementary material, "Dataset S1". Here they give bone measurements: humerus length and circumference and radius length and circumference. Evidently the mass estimate came from those measurements and some equation.

Benson et al. give a series of mass estimates for other dinosaurs in Table 1; all of these are given to 2 significant figures, and when they talk about error in mass estimates they cite Campione & Evans in BMC Biology ("A universal scaling relationship between body mass and proximal limb bone dimensions in quadrupedal terrestrial tetrapods"). Campione & Evans discuss mass estimate accuracies extensively and talk about percent prediction errors of mass estimates in the 25% range. For example, they give their Brachiosaurus mass estimate as 35780 kg, which corresponds to a range of 26840-44730 kg (in their Table 6). For our purposes, rounding the 35780 off to 36000 would be appropriate; without providing an uncertainty range, even that exaggerates the accuracy of the estimate. WolfmanSF (talk) 04:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I see why you are reverting back, yet I don't fully agree. The nature paper cites Benson et alii not for the weight estimate, but for the info and equations to calculate it. With Brachiosaurus, we would not cite a single weight, unless we were discussing all in length, but indeed place in the range, and note what is considered to be most likely. The difference between 6.358 and 6.4 tonnes is great, when you consider that the former is based on a highly precise value that has derived from a sustainably valid equation, and the latter is only one magazine mention away from being WP:OR. Since so much is known of Deinocheirus, a precise estimate from the equation hold true, as the values input would have to be very precise for there to be a precise output. Also, the larger the animal, the less their weight can change daily. If an elephant daily varied 1%, then that would be the equivalent of a daily variation of 70 kilograms. Deinocheirus was larger than elephants in length and height, and weighed about the same. 0.7% difference is 44 kilograms, which would be nearly impossible for any animal of any size to accomplish over a day. Rounding to 6.36 is nearly out of the question as well, for it, while still less than 0.7%, is a difference of 10 kilograms. It should therefore be best to leave the estimate entirely, and not round any number. IJReid ^discuss 14:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The equations basing weight on bone measurements are only accurate to in the neighborhood of plus or minus 25% or so, as Campione & Evans make clear. Please look at their paper and Table 6 if you haven't already. WolfmanSF (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding elephant weight fluctuations, consider that one L of water weighs 1 kg and that "Elephants require about 68.4 to 98.8 L (18 to 26 gal.) of water daily, but may consume up to 152 L (40 gal.). An adult male elephant can drink up to 212 L (55 gal.) of water in less than five minutes." (Source) WolfmanSF (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Campione & Evans state that there is a 25% error rate for the estimation method, not plus/minus 25%. Plus/minus 25% is very different from 25% inaccurate, with the former being a complete misinterpretation of what they say. This means that even if it is not 6.358 tonnes and is instead 6.348 tonnes, the original is incorrect nonetheless. Also, maybe an elephant was a bad comparison, as it is more like a sauropod in that its weight is made up nearly all by its thorax, with Deinocheirus also having a long and bulky neck, tail, and huge forelimbs in comparison. IJReid ^discuss 23:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

They talk about "mean percent prediction error" and a "25% mean prediction error" - that means average error expressed as a per cent is 25%. They also state that the mass ranges in Table 6 incorporate the 25% mean prediction error. The range for Brachiosaurus, mass estimate given as 35780 kg, is 26840-44730 kg, which which corresponds to (0.75 x 35780) to (1.25 x 35780) kg. Do the algebra. I interpreted it correctly. WolfmanSF (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reconsidering. However, it really should be 2 significant digits, following the practice of Benson et al. (since we aren't including any indication of the uncertainty). WolfmanSF (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference check

Hello WolfmanSF: I see your name around a lot. I'm stuck on something and wonder if you can help. I want to bring the long-tailed vole article up to GA status. I'm trying to sort out the synonyms and subspecies, but there are some discrepancies. If you have a minute, the reference here MSW3 gives some synonyms but no subspecies. However, in the text, they mention this reference as a source, which has both synonyms and subspecies. The lists are different. I think that MSW3 is mislabeled and that those are subspecies and not synonyms. Thank you. --Gaff (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Oddly, none of the species in Myomorpha in MSW3 have subspecies listed, as far as I can see, whereas species from other rodent suborders do. Also, I couldn't find one example of a species listing in MSW3 that gives both synonyms and subspecies (this is not true of genera). So, MSW3 doesn't look like a good source for subspecies info in this case, and maybe the synonyms aren't right either. WolfmanSF (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

MSW3 template not working right

Hello again, can you look at the MSW3 references on Marsh shrew and Camas pocket gopher? They are now dealinks. With the template, the shrew tries to go here which is a deadlink for me, but this works if I manually find the hyperlink by searching from the index. Thoughts? --Gaff (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I just checked and the links are working. I also noticed a few days ago that the website appeared not to be functioning. Hope the problem is resolved. At some point in the next few years a new MSW edition will come out, and quite possibly all the MSW3 links will need updating then. WolfmanSF (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

UNIPROT citation and inclusion in article

Hi, Wondering if you can help out with this, since it seems you have a lot of experience. I am bringing the Camas pocket gopher up to FA. It is doing well with the current FAC. I found this and this and want to use them. I've added *{{UniProt Taxonomy | name = Thomomys bulbivorus| id = 113116| accessdate = March 2015}} to the external links. I'd like to include info on the Cytochrome b gene analysis. Do you know how best to do this and in what section to insert it? Thanks, --Gaff (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

If you will be comparing its sequences with those of related species, it might go into the "Current phylogeny" section. If not, perhaps into a new section titled "Molecular biology" or something similar. I haven't seen much discussion of gene analyses in Wikipedia species articles, so I'm not sure if there is an established convention for this. WolfmanSF (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

If there is a comparison, it is probably in this article, cited by Uniprot. I don't have access to ASM. I doubt that there is much value beyond what we already have from the 2008 article already referenced. Thank you. --Gaff (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

You may be able to access the article here: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1383680 WolfmanSF (talk) 06:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Mammut distribution map

Hi there WolfmanSF,

After removing the map I put up in Mammut, you requested that the small portion of the range in South America be removed. The webpage I derived the map from said that the species Mammut americanum didn't reach South America, but it makes no such claims for the entire genus. This webpage also shows mammutid remains originating from that location in South America and in Fossilworks those fossils are assigned to Mammut, not another mammutid genus or incertae sedis. Convinced? Ninjatacoshell (talk) 04:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The Fossilworks listings all appear to be based on this source: The Eocene to Pleistocene vertebrates of Bolivia and their stratigraphic context: a review (which can be obtained via Google Scholar - Wikipedia blacklists the link to the pdf). It describes an occurrence of Mastodon bolivianus which is equated to Cuvieronius hyodon (p. 643, upper left), and it is listed as a gomphothere, not a mastodon. Cuvieronius is an accepted taxon nowadays, although C. hyodon may not be (see Fossilworks), whereas Mastodon bolivianus or Mammut bolivianus is not accepted, as far as I'm aware. Also, Fossilworks does not show Mammut in South America under its own listing, or in the listings of any of the species shown under Mammut. So, I still believe that my request is appropriate. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

On p. 644, lower left, the source also equates C. hyodon with Mastodon andinum and describes it as a gomphothere. For some reason they describe Cuvieronius as a "mastodont", while also describing it as a gomphothere. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

So, in general, I think it is well accepted these days that the gomphotheres Cuvieronius and Stegomastodon were the only proboscids to reach South America. WolfmanSF (talk) 06:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

MLA form references

Hey. Im doing a science project on smilodon and i have to cite my refrences MLA form. So that would require your first and last name. If its not too much to ask, i was wondering if i could know both of your names so i can get a good grade. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.69.45.65 (talk) 21:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia for how to cite Wikipedia. You should not cite an anonymous Wikipedia contributor. However, I would encourage you to cite the primary sources (cited by the Wikipedia article) as much as possible, rather than citing Wikipeida. WolfmanSF (talk) 00:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Aegirocassis

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Problem with panorama

Please see Commons:File talk:California Academy of Sciences pano.jpg for details. I really would like to use your panoramic image. Reify-tech (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I responded there. WolfmanSF (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Per Holknekt

Please take a look at the article Per Holknekt that I have created. Any help is appreciated. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be in reasonable shape. WolfmanSF (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Laplace resonance

You said "the Laplace resonance is the only other example in the Solar System of a 3-body resonance in a satellite system". Then which is the other? --JorisvS (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

"Laplace resonance" refers to the Io:Europa:Ganymede resonance (although similar 1:2:4 resonances in extrasolar systems are sometimes also described by the same term). Hence, the Styx:Nix:Hydra resonance is described as "Laplace-like". Whether there is a universally accepted definition of "Laplace resonance" is not clear. An earlier version of this article defined it as any 3-body resonance. WolfmanSF (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Why "Laplace-like"? --JorisvS (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I presume this is their terminology for a 3-body resonance that does not have the 1:2:4 ratio of the Galilean moons. Others have used "Laplace-type". Ask Mark Showalter if you really want to know. WolfmanSF (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Isn't it then simply a Laplace resonance? If so, we don't have to parrot authors' idiosyncratic wording. --JorisvS (talk) 09:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Please see the paragraph on the definition of "Laplace resonance" in the Types of resonances section of the orbital resonance artlicle. I think that answers your question. WolfmanSF (talk) 09:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, it does. I have rephrased it at moons of Pluto to explain this properly. --JorisvS (talk) 10:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

List of tall stuff

cf.. I think it was right, originally. ResMar 02:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

If so inclined, you could add "asl" ("above sea level") to the elevation values, and approximate above-base values as well. Also, I think the precision shown for the Olympus Mons height is excessive. WolfmanSF (talk) 03:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Arthur Moon: Contentious image deletion

Hi. You have previously edited Arthur Moon. Another editor has recently repeatedly deleted an image that is central to the article and has been present since the page was created. I would welcome your input. Tomintoul (talk) 07:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic, although I can't claim to be someone who is particularly knowledgeable or concerned about copyright issues. WolfmanSF (talk) 01:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Rings of Saturn

"getting Earth in the image was the whole point of taking the picture"

The full set of rings, imaged as Saturn eclipsed the Sun from the vantage of the Cassini spacecraft on 19 July 2013 (brightness is exaggerated).

Simulated image using color to present radio occultation-derived information on particle sizes. Purple indicates few particles smaller than 5 cm are present. Green and blue indicate particles smaller than 5 cm and 1 cm, respectively. White areas of the B Ring are densest and transmit too little signal for size estimation.

So what? The article is about the rings of saturn. That information is simply not relevant. I was going to shorten the captions even more but there was an edit conflict. This is what they are going to look like. This is much better and more straightforward, as it should be. Huritisho (talk) 14:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Given the iconic status of the eclipsed image, I'd say the presence of Earth within it is relevant. As for "Captions are supposed to be brief", yes, that's an appropriate guideline, but not one that needs to be applied rigidly in all cases. Ultimately, images and their captions should be used to add value to the article; if more explanation in a given case is useful in aiding the readers' comprehension of what he's seeing, there's no reason it can't be included. Due to the article's layout, shortening these particular captions just increases the amount of blank white space. I've tried to shorten the captions from their original versions, while preserving content. WolfmanSF (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

IUCN template

Just a note, thanks for the heads-up at the template page - I had been wondering why you were replacing templates with journal cites. Any way to make this change known a little more widely? It's not as if people are particularly good with IUCN linking anyway, but if they do, they will have the template on a copy/paste dashboard somewhere (as do I) and not visit the template page at all. Cheers. -- Elmidae (talk) 06:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking about the same thing. I don't visit project pages much, but I should look into that. WolfmanSF (talk) 07:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Asteroid belt

"Asteroid belt" is a belt composed of asteroids. It does not say or even suggest composed of all asteroids. It is a very normal term and the standard one throughout Wikipedia. Anyone not sufficiently familiar with the matter to know that there are asteroids outside the asteroid belt will not be helped by calling it the 'main belt'. 'Main belt' is even misleading: It actually suggests either that there are other (asteroid) belts with less stuff or, more directly, that it is the most important ('main') belt of not just asteroids, which is false: the Kuiper belt is far more massive. --JorisvS (talk) 01:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The term "asteroid belt" does not make semantically obvious that it is not the locale of all asteroids. "Main belt" does make this clear, which is an advantage. The Jupiter trojans could be loosely viewed as a second (nonuniformly distributed) asteroid belt. Yes, the Kuiper belt is more massive, but it is not populated by asteroids. WolfmanSF (talk) 02:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a rather minor advantage compared to the much bigger disadvantages of suggesting things it is not. The Jupiter trojans do not form a belt, but clouds. --JorisvS (talk) 02:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

In this context, the distinction between belts and clouds is immaterial. The point is, there are other zones where asteroids are present. Given that Ceres is identified as an asteroid, no one is going to believe that "main belt" refers to anything other than asteroids. WolfmanSF (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

So the reader can make out that the belt that would be called 'main belt' is composed of asteroids because it states that Ceres is an asteroid. Still does not mean that 'main belt' is an accurate term (the Solar System's main belt is the Kuiper belt), nor useful. And even if you want to disregard the difference between belts and clouds, the Jupiter trojans could be as numerous as the belt asteroids, making the asteroid belt again not the 'main' belt. "Asteroid belt" is also the term standardized upon in Wikipedia and if readers get confused somehow when reading 'asteroid belt' (I still can't see how this could happen, though), they can simply follow the link. And, again, using "asteroid belt" does not somehow suggest that it is the only place where there are asteroids, and if someone somehow thinks that (you?), they could again follow the link and find out that it doesn't. --JorisvS (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Given that we are using the location or type in parentheses as a descriptor, I did searches for "main belt asteroid" and "asteroid belt asteroid" (with the quotes). The former is favored by 4 to 1 in Google, and by 28 to 1 in Google Scholar. WolfmanSF (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

We're not talking about adjectival usages of "main belt" or "asteroid belt" (which should technically be hyphenated), but a substantive usage. Because "asteroid-belt asteroid" has "asteroid" in it twice, it is often avoided. Even I do that! --JorisvS (talk) 18:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

All right, let's elinminate the offending subcategory and conclude our unproductive discussion. WolfmanSF (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Copyedit request (if possible)

Hello Wolfman,

Hope all is well. I appreciate all the copyedits you have done in the past. You deserve all the barnstars you can get. Anyways, I'm a little uneasy with my recent article: Hasan Tahsin Uzer. Can you take a look at it and see if you can help out with some copyedits? I'm most uncomfortable with the Armenian Genocide testimony section. I'd greatly appreciate it. If you do not have the time nor energy for it, however, I completely understand. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I carried out a light copyedit of that section. It doesn't look bad. WolfmanSF (talk) 01:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I hate to keep asking you this, but you're the only one I trust when it comes to this. Can you do a quick copyedit of Calouste Gulbenkian? I did a massive expansion of the article and would love a second look. If you do not have the time nor energy for it, however, I completely understand. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It looks like an interesting article. I'll try to spend some time on it this weekend. WolfmanSF (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Mammoth paper

Hi Wolfman, do you have the paper you used just as a source in the Columbian mammoth article? I'd like to expand that part further... The abstract doesn't mention the synonymy at all, so I think it could be written in a more balanced way. FunkMonk (talk) 12:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The most relevant comment from the paper (at the start of the last paragraph) is the fairly diplomatic "On this evidence, the source of M. columbi lies in M. trogontherii of Eurasia, its appearance in North America representing a dispersal and the distinction between the two species largely a matter of usage." Note, however, the less diplomatic comments quoted in the second ref. Check your email for the full article. WolfmanSF (talk) 00:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, didn't get the article, though... Shall I send you a mail first? FunkMonk (talk) 01:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, try that. WolfmanSF (talk) 01:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Enceladus

I have nominated Enceladus for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKay (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Oceans

Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean = Pacific and Indian Oceans - combining them does not eliminate the need to capitalize. 66.61.83.123 (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it does. "Pacific Ocean" is a proper noun, "Indian Ocean" is a proper noun, but "oceans" cannot be a proper noun. That's how it works. WolfmanSF (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Abbreviating taxonomic binomials

Hello WolfmanSF,

Thanks for your edit to Hakea cucullata.

Can you give me a reason for abbreviating the name to H.cucullata please? The only reason I know for doing so is laziness - when you're handwriting or typing to save time and/or energy. I can't find anything in Wikipedia:Manual of Style or Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) that requires it. Hakea cucullata was reviewed by a number of experts before it was accepted as a DYK article and none made the abbreviation. All of the pages "List of .........species" (for example, Eucalyptus, Acacia, Ranunculus), and the genus pages (eg. Caladenia, Thelymitra and hundreds of others I've looked at) all give the name of the genus in full for every species. In fact, after much searching, I can only find one that appreviates - List of Banksia species. I have written nearly 400 plant articles and expanded another 150 or so from stubs (mostly in the Myrtaceae and Scrophulariaceae) without abbreviating the genus of any of them. I use Cas Liber as my model plant article writer. It is rare for him to ever use the abbreviation.

Can you explain to me why it must be done, please? I am a bit of a perfectionist and if there is a rule, I will obey it, even if it means editing hundreds of pages. If there is no such rule, I would prefer that the names were given in full. (Please feel free to answer here or on my Talk page.)

Gderrin (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

My understanding was that it should be unabbreviated if starting a sentence or paragraph but otherwise abbreviation is preferred (unless first mention). Sometimes I have left it unabbreviated though if I felt it flowed better that way. Also when listing a second or third species of the same genus - see Ecology section in 'Isopogon anemonifolius, which I am expanding now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not aware that there is a relevant Wikipedia convention or guideline. Perhaps there should be. The article on binomial nomenclature states that a binomen "should generally be written in full. The exception to this is when several species from the same genus are being listed or discussed in the same paper or report, or the same species is mentioned repeatedly; in which case the genus is written in full when it is first used, but may then be abbreviated to an initial".

How much repetition of the genus name is really needed? I regard it as laziness not to abbreviate when a binomen is used repeatedly in a short section of text (such as both above and in the caption below an infobox image, multiple times in a paragraph, or at the beginning of a series of short paragraphs). I guess it's just a judgment call. Perhaps the length of the genus name should be a factor to consider.

In copyediting, I tend to introduce the abbreviation in articles that use the full binomen for the subject of the article repeatedly without ever utilizing the abbreviation. People should be aware that the convention for abbreviation exists, to be used where appropriate. If you feel strongly about this, feel free to revert. WolfmanSF (talk) 06:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello again WolfmanSF. Thanks for that - at least I don't have to go back and edit lots of earlier work! Gderrin (talk) 06:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

KB or TNO?

Hi, i am a bit confused with your edit since all the news and the study paper relate to Kuiper belt objects, i.e. http://www.space.com/31671-planet-nine-discovery-explained-infographic.html or the study http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/0004-6256/151/2/22 (not even mentioning trans-Neptunian objects)prokaryotes (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the journalists who write the stories are not necessarily fully up to speed on the different classes of trans-Neptunian objects; the Wikipedia articles for Kuiper belt, scattered disc, and detached object, as well those for the individual objects mentioned, may be helpful. WolfmanSF (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

But the study isnt mentioning it either, assuming you are correct we should add at least the mention, since the stability zone exists in the Kuiper belt region.prokaryotes (talk) 03:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Brown is also using the term 'Kuiper belt' rather more loosely than we generally do in Wikipedia. WolfmanSF (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

To summarize, 2007 TG422 is a scattered disk object, the other five are detached objects. WolfmanSF (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Can we settle with, ... would explain relationships in the orbits of six trans-Neptunian objects in a stable Kuiper belt configuration...? I just want to have Kuiper belt there somewhere, since it might be confusing for others new to the topic. prokaryotes (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure, work it in somehow. I'll have to turn to other matters at present. WolfmanSF (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, if you later feel it needs a tweak, please correct me. Thanks. prokaryotes (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

One more question, do you think i should update the text of this image, is it wrong (text is based on a Space.com info sheet). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_Nine#/media/File:Planet-Nine-related-clustering-of-small-objects-detected.png prokaryotes (talk) 03:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. Maybe change wording to: "Correlations in orbits of distant trans-Neptunian objects suggest the influence of an unknown planet". By the way, Eric Hand's article in Science does indicate that the six objects orbit mostly far outside the Kuiper belt, and he doesn't call them Kuiper belt objects. WolfmanSF (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, updated. prokaryotes (talk) 09:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

There is now a related discussion on the talk page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Planet_Nine#TNO.2C_KBO... prokaryotes (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Wolfman,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Crater Lake winter pano2.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on May 6, 2016. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2016-05-06. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:56, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the notice. WolfmanSF (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Mehmet Celal Bey

Hi WolfmanSF,

If you have time, can you run a copyedit for me at Mehmet Celal Bey? If not, it's fine. Thanks in advance, Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I'll try to look at it this weekend. WolfmanSF (talk) 21:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)