User talk:WolfmanSF/Archive7

Archives

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

---

Leave a new message

---

Why do you keep changing the order of the name of a taxon and its rank?

Both orders are acceptable, see, e.g., a Google Books search of "the tribe Hominini" [1] and "the Hominini tribe" [2]. Umimmak (talk) 03:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Do you also believe "the planet Mars" and "the Mars planet" are equally acceptable? The exact same principle of syntax is at play in both situations. In formal English prose, we say "planet Mars" but "Mars rover", "enzyme telomerase" but "telomerase gene", and "family Cervidae" but "deer family" for a reason. The order of the more specific and more general terms in the noun combination is reversed, depending on whether that combination is a compound noun or not, i.e. on whether or not the more general term modifies the meaning of the more specific term. Unfortunately, not everyone understands the rule or its generality. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

It's worth noting that all the species articles in Wikipedia originally generated by Polbot were created with the same syntactical error you made (in the mention of the Latin family name). This has now been corrected in most if not all high profile articles, and in nearly all the mammal and bird articles, by me and many others, without anyone complaining that I'm aware of. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Saying "the Cervidae family" doesn't mean it's a compound noun. (No one would say it's a compound noun, as one can coordinate as in The PCR primers were designed from a ClustalW alignment of COI sequences available from GenBank for 54 closely related species within the Bovidae, Cervidae, Geoemydidae and Trionychoidae families from this [3] article in Nature). The names of taxa can be attributive dependents in a composite nominal; they do not have to be appositive modifiers. Umimmak (talk) 07:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps your position would be clearer if you indicated (by number) which of the following combinations you view as acceptable: (1a) planet Mars; (1b) Mars planet; (2a) rover Mars; (2b) Mars rover; (3a) enzyme telomerase; (3b) telomerase enzyme; (4a) gene telomerase; (4b) telomerase gene; (5a) family Cervidae; (5b) Cervidae family; (6a) family deer; (6b) deer family. In cases where the same number appears twice on your acceptable list, please indicate whether you believe both alternatives a and b are equally acceptable, or if one is preferable. Thanks, WolfmanSF (talk) 06:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

It matters less what I personally find acceptable or not but what one sees in published works. Again, seeing as Nature doesn't mind things like "the Bovidae, Cervidae, Geoemydidae and Trionychoidae families" similar constructions should be fine in Wikipedia. But for what it's worth I find the following acceptable: 1ab, 2b, 3ab, 4b, 5ab, 6b. For the pairs where both constructions are permissible to me, they just differ in what's emphasized. And checking Google Books and Google Scholar one sees, for example, both "enzyme telomerase" [4] [5] and "telomerase enzyme" [6] [7]. Perhaps one order is stylistically more common, but that does not make the other ungrammatical. Umimmak (talk) 07:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm a native English speaker and I assume you're not, because I have never seen "Mars planet" even once in over half a century of reading English (it would be a shocking and memorable event if I did). However, when I use Google Scholar to search for "planet Mars" as opposed to "Mars planet" I obtain 23,200 vs. 6,930 hits; similarly for Google Books, 161,000 vs. 21,600 hits. This might suggest by your reasoning that "Mars planet" has some degree of usage. However, that is not true, as the hits are for things like "Mars (planet)" or "Mars ... planet" or "Mars planet-encircling dust storm". I believe there is a trend for noun combinations that are not compound nouns (examples 1, 3, 5) to follow the rule I described (more general term first, examples 1a, 3a, 5a) more strictly for familiar terms than unfamiliar terms (with the phylogenetic "tribe" being rather unfamiliar). This doesn't make sense if you believe all usage is by definition correct, since the logic of the rule applies equally to both familar and unfamilar terms. At the moment, I don't have a lot of time to gather statistics to support this position. However, I would like to point out that examining high-profile Wikipedia articles supports my contention that there is a consensus to use "genus Homo" and "family Hominidae" rather than the reverse, and that this consensus should apply equally to "tribe", "species", etc. By the way, I don't think a journal article's content should be regarded an authoritative source on syntax, because journal editors these days don't often bother to make syntax corrections. Decades ago that was more common. WolfmanSF (talk) 06:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I assure you I'm a native English speaker—born and raised in an English-speaking country to a monolingual English–speaking family, educated at English–language universities. I'll concede that "planet Mars" is more common than "Mars planet", but one does see the latter construction, e.g., Furthermore, the measured opacities (optical depth) and the calculated insolation pertain to just two locations on the Mars planet; Viking lander 1 (VL 1) is located at 22.3”N latitude and 47.9”W longitude, and Viking lander 2 (VL2) is located at 47.7”N latitude and 225.7 ’ W longitude from this paper or The break load in N/m and the percent strain at break were also measured over a temperature range from 23 to the predicted envelope temperature of -140°C on the Mars planet, the results are shown in Figure (4) from this one. Do you have "an authoritative source" saying one must not use "the Bovidae, Cervidae, Geoemydidae and Trionychoidae families" or "the Hominini tribe"? This is a matter of style, and if there truly has been consensus over the years with multiple editors weighing in, then I'll concede that this has become house style. Umimmak (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Given that there are only a few rare cases of "Mars planet", the logical conclusion from my perspective is that these are outliers and this usage should be considered wrong. As for authoritative sources, I would like to spend more time looking into this but am busy at the moment. If I come up with anything that seems fairly definitive I'll ping you. WolfmanSF (talk) 06:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Well Mars wasn't really the issue at hand. The issue was taxonomic names and ranks, which you continue to change without a source. If you search Google Scholar you see "in the family Onagraceae" has 96 hits [8] and "in the Onagraceae family" has 398 hits [9]. Again, both constructions are used; it's not "copyediting" to switch one to the other. Have you found a source/style guide that indicates this is more than just an idiosyncratic stylistic choice on your part? Umimmak (talk) 02:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC) I changed my mind on this; I give up trying to debate this point with you. Umimmak (talk) 02:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

As I said, I don't have the time to research the subject much at the moment. However, consider the following Google Scholar results:

"family Hominidae" - 2150 hits

"Hominidae family" - 286

"genus Homo" - 20,400

"Homo genus" - 1300

"family Rosaceae" - 10,100

"Rosaceae family" - 8,110

"family Onagraceae" - 1070

"Onagraceae family" - 695

The same rule(s) of syntax obviously should apply in each case. The zoological terms seem to more closely follow the rule "more general noun first for a combination that is not a compound noun" than the botanical. My impression is that this is because there are a lot of less educated people using botanical terms due to their involvement in horticulture. WolfmanSF (talk) 05:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Umimmak, There has been further discussion of the topic here. WolfmanSF (talk) 07:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Peter coxhead, further discussion of a topic we discussed a few years ago can be found above and here. WolfmanSF (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

As has been pointed out before, Google searches are misleading because Google omits punctuation, so "family Rosaceae" will also find "family (Rosaceae)" in uses like "the rose family (Rosaceae)". If you instead compare searching for "family Rosaceae" -"rose family" with "Rosaceae family" -"rose family" you'll find much more equal numbers of hits. Umimmak is absolutely right to say that both are acceptable since both are found in reliable sources, and no editor should be changing one for the other where there is consistency within an article. I regularly revert such changes to articles on my watchlist. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I did Google Scholar searches using quotes, and after brief perusal can't find any hits of the type you describe, so I don't think the results are misleading at all. Furthermore, that would not explain the difference in usage between zoological and botanical usage, which must be real. Sorry, I could not disagree more strongly. All such "[Linnaean name] family" constructions are wrong, point blank, and should be corrected. Please follow the link I provided and look at the Google Ngram results. WolfmanSF (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

People don't always get the same results from Google searches, but here's what I found with Google Scholar from the UK:

• search for "family Rosaceae" – 9,840
• search for "rose family Rosaceae" – 822
• search for "family Rosaceae" -"rose family" – 8,680
• search for "Rosaceae family" – 8,110

So of the 9,840 hits for "family Rosaceae", 822 are for "rose family Rosaceae"; all of those I looked at are "rose family (Rosaceae)". Hence true hits for "family Rosaceae" are 9,840 - 822 = 9,018, which is consistent with the hits for "family Rosaceae" -"rose family", since some of those will have "rose family" elsewhere. A ratio of 9,018 to 8,110 shows that both usages are common, and hence either can be used.

I agree that if you substitute a zoological family for a botanical family, the ratio is less equal. Allowing for occurrences of "cat family (Felidae)", for "Felidae" the ratio is more than 3:1 in favour of putting "family" first. Nevertheless, there are over 900 scientific sources that use the phrase "Felidae family", like this one.

So, no, this usage is absolutely not wrong, and if consistent should not be corrected because it is found in reliable sources, albeit less commonly for zoological families. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Peter coxhead: I wasn't sure if there was some obscure stylistic guideline in MOS:ORGANISM I was unaware of, so it's good to confirm there isn't actually a consensus among Wikipedia editors to only use one of these constructions. Umimmak (talk) 08:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I don't know why you denigrate horticultural sources. For plants, they are just as important for establishing English usage – indeed probably more so, since the consensus has consistently been to favour usage in more general sources over more specialized ones (e.g. the rejection of the capitalization of English names for birds, lepidoptera and other groups where specialist sources capitalize). Peter coxhead (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Umimmak and Peter coxhead, I think you guys are missing the big picture here. The truth of the following propositions should be obvious (at least from my perspective):

• 1) The same rules of English syntax that apply to zoological terms apply equally to botanical terms.
• 2) The same rules of syntax apply to terms at all taxonomic ranks.
• 3) These same rules of syntax also apply to noun combinations involving other subjects.
• 4) The basic rules of English syntax have not changed appreciably in the last few decades.

Now, let's evaluate some data from the Google Books NGram Viewer (click on the links):

Google Ngrams for usage of Linnaean and common taxonomic terms (dominant usage is bold, absent usage is line-through)

Zoological Linnaean	Zoological common	Botanical Linnaean	Botanical common
kingdom Animalia, Animalia kingdom	kingdom animal, animal kingdom	kingdom Plantae, Plantae kingdom	kingdom plant, plant kingdom
phylum Chordata, Chordata phylum	phylum chordate, chordate phylum	division Pinophyta, Pinophyta division
class Mammalia, Mammalia class	class mammal, mammal class
order Primates, Primates order	order primate, primate order	order Pinales, Pinales order
suborder Haplorhini, Haplorhini suborder
family Hominidae, Hominidae family	family hominid, hominid family	family Cupressaceae, Cupressaceae family	family cypress, cypress family
subfamily Ponginae, Ponginae subfamily		subfamily Rosoideae, Rosoideae subfamily
tribe Hominini, Hominini tribe
genus Homo, Homo genus		genus Rosa, Rosa genus
species Homo sapiens, Homo sapiens species	species human, human species	species Zea mays, Zea mays species	species corn, corn species

The pattern should be obvious. In each pair, there is one very dominant (read "correct") word order, and one relatively little used (read "incorrect") word order, consistent with what I said above, with one glaring exception. The exception is recent use (only) of Linnaean botanical family names. So, it's quite clear that this usage, unique among all the examples illustrated, has changed significantly recently and does not follow that pattern, i.e. it has been corrupted. The fairly obvious explanation is the lower average level of education of users of botanical Linnaean terms I've alluded to, which has led to people conflating the way "family" is used with Linnaean and common botanical family names.

A few more points. Reliable sources for scientific data do not necessarily constitute reliable sources for syntax and grammar; scientific papers are typically not edited for the latter. There obviously is an informal, if not codified, consensus among Wikipedia editors to go with "family [Linnaean name]" and not the reverse, as this is the convention used in virtually all high profile articles, despite Polbot having originally set up species articles with the reverse order.

For a few other editors' views, follow these links. WolfmanSF (talk) 07:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Just because a construction is newer or used less often doesn't mean it's "incorrect" or has been "corrupted" or is due to "lower average levels of education". I'll concede that one variant might more common/established in published academic literature and that you aren't alone in prescribing it over the other for Wikipedia house style or in associating higher prestige with it. However, I'm clearly not the only English speaker whose idiolect finds both constructions perfectly grammatical as one finds both attested in reliable sources written by biologists/taxonomists familiar with the stylistic guidelines of their discipline, as this discussion keeps coming up on talk pages, and as one sees Featured Article with both constructions (although I suspect you will now immediately "fix" these "errors"...):

• Achelousaurus Horner, an expert on the Hadrosauridae family, had less affinity for other kinds of dinosaurs. [...] The bone structure indicates that the bosses were covered by cornified pads as in modern muskoxen, suggesting dominance fights similar to those of members of the Caprinae subfamily.
• African crake Phylogeny and morphology confirm that the Porzana crakes are the closest relatives of the Crex genus.
• Australian green tree frog The iris is golden and has a horizontally slit pupil, as is typical of the Litoria genus

If one variant is in fact anathema to the majority of Wikipedia editors, then it perhaps should be explicitly formalized as a stylistic guideline. Although I remain hopeful that soon both constructions will be common enough that neither will be stigmatized in formal prose. Umimmak (talk) 09:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@WolfmanSF: it's you that are missing the point. When usages are well attested in reliable sources at the level that is true of "the X family" and "the family X" neither is "correct" and neither is "wrong"; they are acceptable variants. No more from me since we aren't going to agree. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: Yeah well said; I probably could have been much more succinct. Umimmak (talk) 12:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

What you're missing, from my perspective, is the insight that syntax follows a logical pattern, not idiosyncratic rules that vary with taxonomic rank or field of biology. Scientists, like members of other groups, vary widely in their understanding of the rules of formal English prose, and the few examples you cite prove nothing. Since you've rejected this rather overwhelming body of evidence in my favor, I won't raise the subject again until I collect more. WolfmanSF (talk) 06:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead and Umimmak: would you ever write "the Grimm brothers".It's "technically correct" but no-one would every write it. Or "Windsor House" or "Tudor House". Overwhelmingly I see [taxon rank] [taxon name] and never see the reverse unless written in a non-sicentific work. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@Casliber: but everyone writes "the Kennedy family", and the exact phrase "Grimm brothers" gets 280,000 Google hits, including [Grimm Brothers' Home Page - University of Pittsburgh]. As for scientific texts and taxon name before taxon rank, please see the results I posted above, where "family Rosaceae" and "Rosaceae family" are about equally common in Google Scholar searches. As for I ... never see the reverse unless written in a non-scientific work, how about this one which starts with "The Felidae family"?

You don't like "the Xidae family", and like you I always write "the family Xidae" or "the family Xaceae", and we're entitled to do so. But those who prefer "the Xidae family" and "the Xaceae family" can rightly point to highly reliable scientific and non-scientific sources that do use this style, even if it is less frequent, so both must be allowed here (if used consistently within an article). Peter coxhead (talk) 10:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, I would easily say "the Grimm brothers" and a quick search of Google Scholar presents many academic papers using that order as well [10]. I probably wouldn't use "Tudor House", but only because that makes it sound like I'm talking about a building (corpus searches are also complicated by discussion of physical houses). And there are plenty of academic papers using the name–rank construction; yes I concede that this is not the dominant construction, but there is certainly precedent for this usage in formal academic papers. Although I concede that this variant might not yet be established or common enough for it to be considered as prestigious or as standard within this particular register. Umimmak (talk) 11:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Concerning the nonsensical edit at Brachylophus_gibbonsi

Just to let you know, the "reasoning" behind this edit is that the editor-in-question is an IP-hopping vandal who is obsessed with altering the temporal ranges of Holocene-aged prehistoric animals, and to Hell with its edits being correct or not, and to Hell with discussing with the editors it editwars with beyond the occassional petulant whining. So, in other words, if you see edits like that, revert everything it's done as per WP:DENY, as sorting out its good edits from its bad edits is like trying to sift wheat out of Renaissance Faire-grade waste.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm at least partially aware of what's going on. I'm not sure why we can't get these articles protected for sufficiently long periods to decrease the nuisance to other editors. WolfmanSF (talk) 00:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I've tried to get some article semi-protected, but, since they're mostly stub-articles that otherwise see light traffic, the arbitrating admins rarely care to protect them for long.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Why the admins would not be more concerned with helping dedicated and long-suffering editors, rather than enabling vandalism, is a mystery to me. WolfmanSF (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

(rambling, mixed-metaphor-filled parable about cogs versus gears versus carp versus fishfrying redacted)--Mr Fink (talk) 17:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Monte Verde

I removed this sentence, "However, as of 2009 no archaeological evidence has been found of pre-Clovis humans using a coastal migration route." And you immediately reverted it.

Please read the reason I removed it in the talk section. As someone who knows what he's talking about, let me assure you, oversights like this are the reason Wikipedia is disdained in the academic community.

This sentence is incorrect in too many ways to count. But I did list 5 of them. If you'd like another 5, let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4A00:1D00:B809:336C:C1BB:9FBD (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, you're a little mixed up about several things. First, I'm not the one who reverted your deletion. Second, you invited being reverted by making an edit as an anonymous i.p. address, without offering an edit summary. It's great that you did eventually give your reasoning, but you should have done that first, at least in a condensed form in the edit summary. To minimize your odds of being reverted, and to be viewed as a more responsible contributor, I suggest you register as an editor and get in the habit of consistently providing edit summaries with your edits. Also, don't get quite so hysterical over being reverted - being able to deal with that situation is part of being a Wikipedian. WolfmanSF (talk) 03:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Period in caption

Before your edit to King Island emu, was my edit correct? I ask this because I have been changing image captions. SLBedit (talk) 03:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Here's the policy: WP:Caption#Formatting and punctuation. So, your addition of a period to a sentence fragment was against policy, since the fragment was not accompanied by another complete sentence. WolfmanSF (talk) 04:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

IUCN Statuses

I am in the slow process of updating all the Mammal lists with those IUCN statuses, not to mention that some species were reverted to incorrect statuses.Donkey8 (talk)

Yes, thank you for updating the statuses, and sorry about reverting those. However, I don't think you should be doing things like removing commas, removing indicators that an extinction was prehistoric, or changing the status symbols without prior discussion. I prefer the status indicators I'm using for several reasons: they are more intuitive, less intrusive, easier to read, and more selective in drawing attention to the greatest threats, in way way that does not require looking at the legend or even reading. WolfmanSF (talk) 22:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Elizabeth Blackburn

You swapped two words within a quote on Elizabeth Blackburn and left an edit summary of "clean up". Did you mean to do this? Natureium (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

No, that was a mistake. Thanks for pointing it out. WolfmanSF (talk) 19:28, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous accusation. Drastic, contested edits made without consensus are tantamount to vandalism. Reverting vandalism is not edit warring. Your intimidation tactics do not impress me. WolfmanSF (talk) 18:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Please read and understand the definition of WP:VANDALISM accepted in wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I wish to point out that there is a large degree of hubris and hypocrisy behind a warning not to engage in an edit war, coming from the editor who provoked the conflict and who also participated in it. However, he did the latter only after seeking and acquiring an ally, a process that took 1.5 years, during which time the article received about 216,038 page views. I, in contrast, did not solicit for allies. I also requested him to desist from reverting and focus on discussion prior to this warning, which he declined to do. So, I would say he was gaming the system. WolfmanSF (talk) 02:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Laconic phrase. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bishonen | talk 19:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: WP:3RR is a bright-line rule. The edits by several people that you reverted were not vandalism, and certainly nothing like "obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism", as the policy puts it (bolding in the original). Bishonen | talk 19:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC).

Thank you for clarifying that in an edit conflict, edits that blank a large fraction of a page, eliminating longstanding content, without consensus or even discussion, are evaluated on an equal basis with edits that restore that content. This is, in my view, a far from optimal analysis. Reforming the system would, unfortunately, require admins overseeing edit conflicts to do something more cerebral than just count. WolfmanSF (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

vandalism

Hi @WolfmanSF:. I was hoping that you might explain why you think that adding a link to a multi-access key for Eucalypts constitutes vandalism? (I thought it was helpful???) Regards, MargaretRDonald (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Since I reverted back TO your edit, it was not your edit that I am labeling as vandalism, but rather the edits between yours and my revert. My previous edit was also a revert, most likely of the same individual using a different alias. Regards, WolfmanSF (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi @WolfmanSF:. Thanks for the explanation, and thanks for the reversion. (I was pretty shocked to have stuff labelled as vandalism!) MargaretRDonald (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The "undo" function after an edit in an article history allows one to revert a single edit at a time, but only if subsequent edits have not modified that section. However, clicking on the "prev" link before an edit in an article history brings up the option to "restore this version", an option that always works and which allows reverting multiple edits at once (if appropriate). The latter type of revert is what I used in this case. WolfmanSF (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018

I have reverted your edit to Mangrove because it inserted unsourced, non-neutral point-of-view material in front of an existing citation which did not support the new material. This was misleading and disruptive to the encyclopdia. Your edit summary was also misleading. - Donald Albury 12:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC) Comment struck. - Donald Albury 01:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that in the future you determine who added what, before you start making accusations. WolfmanSF (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

My apologies. I conflated your edit with the prior one, but that does not excuse my actions. - Donald Albury 01:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, WolfmanSF (talk) 01:26, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Rise of Macedon --> HELLENIC KINGDOM

New WP:CONSENSUS Building. "Greek" or "Hellenic" precedes "kingdom" in the first sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragao2004 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that only 526 editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

-- Dolotta (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Synoyms

Hello WolfmanSF,

At the risk of sounding trivial ...... I have entered the synonyms on the Eucalyptus page in the order they are listed at WCSP (an order I use in all plant articles to which I've contributed). The order is chronological. Can you suggest why alphabetical order is better? Gderrin (talk) 02:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

That's fine, but might I suggest that when you do that you add the year, to make clear what you're doing? WolfmanSF (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Plesiorycteropus §Literature cited

It is understandable that you would want to harmonize templated and untemplated citations in Plesiorycteropus §Literature cited. However, doing that in the way that you have done is problematic.

It appears that Plesiorycteropus was developed using untemplated citations and remained that way until this edit in 2016 introduced the first templated citation. Per WP:CITEVAR, citation style should not be changed without local consensus to make that change. Of course, editors ignore this all the time in the expectation that someone who cares will harmonize the citation style.

Over several edits you have attempted to harmonize the citation style by:

• converting |lastn= / |firstn= to |authors= – in cs1|2, use of |authors= is discouraged because author-metadata are not created for this parameter
• adding subscription required text first to |title= – extraneous text that is not actually part of a title corrupts the citation's metadata
  • and then in |series= – 'subscription required' is not the name of the work's series
• converting named identifiers to |url= – links formed by named identifiers (|doi= in this case) are considered to be immutable; in cs1|2 named identifiers are presumed to lie behind a pay- or registration-wall whereas |url= is presumed to be free-to-read
  • and then to urls of some other form that ignore the benefits of named identifiers – urls used in lieu of named identifiers are prone to link rot and may constitute copyright violations

If you are going to use the cs1|2 templates, please use them correctly; don't attempt to create renderings that 'look' a certain way by misusing available parameters that are intended for very different purposes.

In general I favor templated citations over untemplated for their consistency and relative ease of use and maintenance. In this article, given that the prevailing style is untemplated, the correct way to harmonize §Literature cited is to change cs1|2 templates to untemplated or gain consensus to change the article's citation style to templated and convert the rest of the bibliography.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm aware of all that. I don't personally approve of untemplated reference listings, but the primary author of the article, who is no longer active on Wikipedia, favors them. Mysteriously (to me), some editors want to make the citation and reference listings look just like those in books. ignoring the fact that Wikipedia isn't a book and thus throwing away many of the advantages of being on the web. In fact, there are severe problems with using untemplated citations for sources like IUCN and Mammal Species of the World, as it makes them difficult to update when their systems change, which may happen periodically. So, it's an awkward situation no matter what approach you take. WolfmanSF (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Could we, perhaps, leave it as it is until after it has appeared as the featured article on the main page, and then deal with the templates? WolfmanSF (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

If "a featured article exemplifies our very best work..." (WP:FACR) then I would have to say no because, clearly, Plesiorycteropus §Literature cited is not "our very best work".

I don't know who you believe to be the primary author of the article. Many years ago now, when I was a clueless neophyte, I had words with Editor Ucucha where that editor more-or-less declared some sort of primacy. Editor Ucucha is still active as of 24 January 2019.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

He's still around, but hasn't been very active for a number of years. As for having "some sort of primacy", yes, editors tend to feel that way about articles they are mainly responsible for; I may be guilty of that myself occasionally. I'll reconsider this when I have time. WolfmanSF (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll reconsider this when I have time. Am I to understand that this is your polite way of telling me to bugger-off and leave you and Plesiorycteropus alone? Alas, my experience with editors who have said that they 'will reconsider', that they 'will come back to this later', and other such statements of intent, is that they rarely do. Which now leaves this FA article not so FA.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

No, that's not what I meant; I'll get to it before it reaches the main page. WolfmanSF (talk) 00:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The Reticulated giraffe is actually Endangered according to IUCN

https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/88420717/88420720 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:3020:F480:50C8:D70F:95F:1788 (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, you're correct. But you should have changed the assessment link before you changed the assessment. Also, you preceded that edit with 3 nonsense edits, which is why I didn't check more carefully. WolfmanSF (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Kangaroo rat

Hello WolfmanSF. My recent edit at Kangaroo rat was in relation to a situation discussed at User talk:Chiswick Chap#Refspam. If you think that the citation is adequate, it can stay. Thank you for patrolling, —PaleoNeonate – 10:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

OK, I see that the addition of that citation may have been part of a pattern of self-promotional editing. However, in this case it seems like a useful and non-redundant source, so I'd like to keep it for now. Thanks, WolfmanSF (talk) 10:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Dispute.

I just undid your edit of an abbreviation. Abbreviations don't exist solely to be used. In this context, it was "a few thousand km", and I changed it to "a few thousand kilometres". It doesn't make sense in my opinion to abbreviate km if there are no concrete figures before the word, like 3 km, 8 km, etc. I can understand that, but not "a few thousand kilometeres" abbreviated to "a few thousand km". It looks like it's too vague. In this context, it just sounds a bit forced and unnatural. Feel free to disagree with this usage. Your input is appreciated. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 20:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

It's a trivial point, but if you don't like "a few thousand km" I suggest we do abbreviate when the word does follow a number. Writing it out in full every time we use the unit is silly. WolfmanSF (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm okay with that. I'd rather have more editors weigh in (or consult the MOS), but this is just between you and me for now. ― Дрейгорич / Dreigorich Talk 22:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Homo luzonensis

On 11 April 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Homo luzonensis, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

Stephen 22:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)