User talk:Ucucha/Archive10

Archives

Leave a new message

Florida Mouse[edit]

I hope you can help me. I have a few questions: where may I find a distribution/range map for this species and an illustration or photograph for the taxobox? Would images from government agencies such as a state or federal wildlife dept or state university be acceptable? Are such government images free use? The Smithsonian reference has a good map but I don't know if it can be used here. I'm not familiar with uploading images and the rules are a bit daunting! Also I thought this article has a good DYK: "Did you know that the Florida mouse is the only species in the genus Podomys, and the only mammal genus native to Florida?", or "Did you know that land development threatens the future of Podomys, the only mammal genus native to Florida?" What do you think? I'm not familiar with DYK procedures but they do seem less daunting than the images rules! Also I thought of sending this article to GA because I would like recommendations on improving it. Should I do so or not? Susanne2009NYC (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Works of the federal government are public domain, but those of the Smithsonian are not (cf. commons:Licensing#Works by the US government). State government sources are generally not free use, but it appears that (fortunately for you, I think) Florida is an exception (commons:Template:PD-FLGov). Perhaps you can find a suitable distribution map in this way; otherwise I'll be able to make one.

You can certainly send more of your articles to DYK; I think I saw on my watchlist that you've been expanding a few others too. Let me know if you need any help there. (You do need "endemic" instead of "native" in both of your hooks.) There is some interesting material on the fossil history of the Florida mouse here. It looks like G. S. Morgan and J. A. White. 1995. Bulletin of the Florida Museum of Natural History 37(13) (ref copied from here) actually placed Peromyscus oklahomensis in Podomys, which would make Podomys no longer endemic to Florida when its fossil distribution is considered. You might have missed that Podomys floridanus was actually described twice, first in 1889 by Chapman as Hesperomys floridanus and then in 1890 by Merriam as Hesperomys macropus. MSW 3 doesn't list the latter, why I don't know.

I certainly encourage you to take the articles you expanded on to GA or even FA status. It's a great way to get feedback and to affirm that the articles you write comply with important Wikipedia conventions. Ucucha 21:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ucucha. You have new messages at Eustress's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you for the information! I'll incorporate it into the appropriate places in the article. I'll be looking for a range map and a photo but if I hit a snag on this I'll alert you. I wouldn't know the first thing about making a map! Thank you again! Susanne2009NYC (talk) 08:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FAC tech checks[edit]

Thank you for checking the dabs, dead externals, and such on the FACs. It's something I like to check as well, but I've been enjoying a punishingly tough computer game so I won't do my part (as often) for some time. Good luck out there. --an odd name 08:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the job of Wikicup checker so I figured that when I'm looking at all new FACs anyway I could as well click those links in the toolbox. :) But why is that article still a stub? Ucucha 13:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Elona? Lack of reliables (that I am aware of). I prodded it some time ago and it was stopped. I don't feel like going through further deletion drama at the moment (there's enough of that) with, say, AFD, so I plopped in the de-prodder's edit summary as a notability assertion for now.

I'll add some plot—and rewrite "features eleven races and ten classes" in plain English with context—at some later point (if I actually stop playing, lol). The blog the official site mentions doesn't seem reliable; maybe a print mag has mentioned Elona but I wouldn't know. --an odd name 17:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it doesn't look very notable from that article alone, but I can understand that you've got little appetite for an AFD. Well, see what you do with it—and do come back to Wikipedia when you're done with it. Ucucha 17:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK commas[edit]

Hey Ucucha, I noticed some comma issues in one of the DYK hooks in the queue--the entry for Son Bonds, currently in Queue 6. I don't know if it's my place to edit on that page, so I'll just leave you the note: it needs a comma after singer (if, like me, you believe in the serial comma), the comma after songwriter needs to be removed (that's a rule), and the comma after 1947 can be removed (and needs to be removed for "flow"). I noted with glee that your millwright/poet will be on the main page soon. Also, I am taking a serious, serious liberty by editing something on your user page, a change based on my observations. Block me for user page vandalism if you like. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I thought the adjectives would follow automatically. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I'd have no problems with having you edit that page, but I'm afraid MediaWiki won't let you—any interest in changing that? I struck a couple of commas from that hook. I didn't insert the serial comma, though I do believe in it, because that's a style issue and therefore we follow the author of the hook.

Your correction on my user page is probably right. The German and the Latin might also have to go up by one but I don't really care. The text doesn't automatically change because I killed all the templates in order to be able to say "I am" instead of "This user is"—I am not Asterix's Caesar, after all. The color of the box should also change but to find out what to change it to I have to find my way through four or so levels of nested subtemplates, and I have better things to do than that.

For some reason, my hooks always seem to get into the queue in groups: the chipmunk (which I only nominated) is also there now, and my last three DYKs were in consecutive sets (User talk:Ucucha/Archive9#DYK for Zygomatic plate and following). I guess CW and MS and the other people assembling the sets first have to hold their breath to approve another boring rodent nom and when one is through they get courageous enough to do a few more. Ucucha 16:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That chipmunk, what a cute little animal--so much nicer-looking than your usual rats. I once had a run of Kronos Quartet albums, and the nice people at DYK ran them all. I don't believe, BTW, that your rodents are that boring, though I have secret hopes that you secretly write poems about or to them; they couldn't be worse than the millwright's. Thanks for the comma corrections. Now get to class, will you? Or, if you're in class, put the stupid iPhone down and pay attention to your professor. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No classes today, only an hour of Spanish this morning. For that, my Tuesdays and Thursdays are full, though. We'll see—I'll probably have a topic that reaches the very epitome of boringness soon. Ucucha 21:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Eastern chipmunk[edit]

On February 2, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eastern chipmunk, 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) 00:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK glitch[edit]

Thanks for fixing the Donald Macleay glitch. I'm not sure what happened. Finetooth (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The same thing also happened a few days ago, as noted at WT:DYK, with this edit. I have no idea what causes it.

You did make a formatting error in the hook, using [[Portland, Oregen|Portland}}. Perhaps that broke the NewDYKnom template in some weird way. I was able to reproduce the glitch. Ucucha 00:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Rispenserpoldermolen, Easterein[edit]

On February 2, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rispenserpoldermolen, Easterein, 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, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYKT Test page[edit]

Thanks for the heads up. I've made the edit on the real. They both look so similar.Clerks. (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taxobox[edit]

Hoi,

Ik ben bezig met het opzetten van een wikipedia specifiek voor de koi(karper) hobby. Nu wil ik gebruik maken van het taxobox sjabloon.

Ik heb als test de koi pagina van wikipedia gekopieerd, maar op mijn wiki ziet de opmaak er anders uit. Het blijkt dat opmaakcodes (bijv: <tr><td align="center" style="padding: 0;">) gezien worden als tekst. Als ik in de broncode van mijn koi pagina kijk zie ik het volgende:

& lt;tr& gt;& lt;td align="center" style="padding: 0;"& gt;<a href="/koipedia/index.php/Bestand:Six_koi.jpg"

Terwijl de wikipedia Koi pagina er als volgt uitziet:

<tr><td align="center" style="padding: 0;"><a href="/wiki/Bestand:Six_koi.jpg"

Kan ik ergens vinden wat ik moet doen om het taxobox sjabloon te installeren en te gebruiken ?

mvg,

Eduard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Draude71 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dat ziet eruit alsof bij u om de een of andere reden de <-tekens in HTML-codes zijn omgezet: < wordt < en > wordt >. Als u die codes vervangt door < en >, zou het gewoon moeten werken. Ucucha 22:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CENT[edit]

Hi Ucucha. I've removed the CENT link to the discussion on sensitive wildlife as that is pulling attention to the plant's location, and is possibly not the most appropriate route to go down to deal with the issue. I have emailed the oversighters to look into this matter. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 12:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably right. The proposal is failing anyway (note that I didn't make it and expressed no committed opinion on it), but it already seemed weird for the proposer to actually name the precise location there when that was exactly what we wanted to prevent. Ucucha 13:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Angelou[edit]

Ucucha, how nice that you took a break from editing about small animals to permanently semi-block this article. Dr. A's bio has been protected regularly, since as you noticed, it has consistently received some nasty vandalism. There have been times when it's been so bad, I shudder to think if the subject read it at the worst time and found some there. So thank you. Eventually, I could see this article getting permanent protection, like after she (God forbid) passes on. (I mean, she is in her eighties, although from what I hear, in excellent health, rumors notwithstanding.) Keep fighting the good fight! --Christine (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! It's indefinitely semi-protected now. I caught a vandal who placed some very bad nastiness there and noticed that vandalism occurred quite often. Since this is a BLP, it's better to prevent it. Ucucha 16:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ucucha. You have new messages at Tb240904's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Caecilita, Briggsia, Cypripedium[edit]

Do you happen to know if the section of the ICZN about the date of a species description being based on the date of print distribution still applies, namely to Caecilita? If so, the species still has not been described. (here is the description)?

What name do you think I should use for an article on an interesting species and monotypic genus of clingfish discovered last year, called Briggsia hastingsi? There is also a plant called Briggsia and possibly one called Briggsia hastingsi, so this is rather hard to decide.

Do you think you might be interested in this discussion: Wikipedia talk:Sensitive wildlife locations? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 16:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your thing on your username at your page, I can't help commenting that it gets more extreme. User:Rufous-crowned Sparrow got Rufous-crowned Sparrow to FA. I wonder how many times that got to the conflict of interest thing. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 16:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The name is currently unavailable, I believe, per ICZN Article 11.1 [1]. However, I am not sure how much of an issue we should make of that—the exact date of publication is really relevant only for issues of priority, and the name is going to be formally available soon. I would cite the authority as "Wake and Donnelly, in press", though. Interesting animal, by the way—might make a good DYK.

I would place that article under Briggsia (fish) or something similar, though I can see the point for Briggsia hastingsi. The only source listing B. hastingsi as a plant seems to be our Wikipedia article, which is probably just an error for someone who read Briggsia hastingsi and didn't check that it was really a plant and not a fish. I removed it from the article.

Further comment: As you probably know, there's a lot of other inter-Code ambiguous generic names: see species:Category:Disambiguation pages for some more. A few I could find on Wikipedia, such as Baileya, have a disambiguator, but those are not monotypic, and it might be defensible to treat monotypic genera differently. Ucucha 16:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That guideline is an interesting idea, and not something I'd given much thought to before. I can see the point in it, but your and Snowman's objections are also reasonable. It reminds me of the paleontological practice of not publishing the exact locality of some fossil finds to avoid disturbance by commercial fossil hunters. I am trying to think of examples where the guideline could apply in mammals—perhaps for Melomys rubicola, or some Cuban hutias that only occur on very few cays.

Yes, Rufous-crowned Sparrow got quite a few mentions there [2]. Well, we have a stub at Innotata, so perhaps you could also join the ranks of those evil COI editors. Ucucha 16:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. In regards to Caecilita, yes, I am going to make it a DYK. I'll develop it in my user namespace, since I'd like to work with it as a bit of a mess, and nominate it along with Atretochoana. I think I'll use Briggsia hastingsi, Briggsia (plant), and Briggsia, dab. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've lost track of the sensitive wildlife locations thing. What was all the deleting of info on that European lady's slipper? It didn't seem right, though I don't care much about the info as regards that one species: it has always been common enough in Scandinavia, and it is now commoner than it was in Britain. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was to remove the location of that plant from the Wikipedia page (also see a few sections down from here). Not sure what led the proposer to do exactly that with his proposal that he was trying to prevent. The deleted page history is trivial. Ucucha 18:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moves[edit]

Can you move these pages? Star-nosed Mole to star-nosed mole (case used in text) Acantholingua ohridana to Acantholingua Salvethymus svetovidovi to Salvethymus. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All three done (trusting your word that the fish genera are monotypic). The mole is now the only one of its family that uses sentence case, though. At least it can easily be moved back. Ucucha 22:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fish are all monotypic genera according to FishBase, the classification and names of which are used on Wikipedia. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the very last caecilian article with the wrong page name: Nectocaecilia petersii, monotypic genus. Can you move it? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. What's that with Polbot using French common names for caecilians [3]? Ucucha 20:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. A lot had Spanish or Portugese names, and there was the Rubber Eel, but all caecilians are at their scientific names now. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rubber Eel... right. Sounds nice. I'll also feel sorry about moving the Primordial Tapecua when I come around to that.

Good to hear that; I'd expect all caecilian common names to be poorly established. Ucucha 20:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to My Name[edit]

It looks like I accidentally semi-reverted you here without realizing it. Someone at the FAC had asked for a translation in the alt-text, so I added it without having noticed your edit. Personally I don't have a strong feeling either way about the inclusion of a translation. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ALT#Verifiability requires that alt text be verifiable for a non-expert from the image, and I doubt that a non-expert can verify the English translation from that Chinese text. Also see the examples at WP:ALT#Text, which do not contain translations either. Ucucha 03:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on the alt guidelines and personally I don't mind whichever way the alt is worded, but if you like you can talk to User:DCGeist (the one who commented at the FAC and asked for the alt-text to be changed). Whatever solution you guys work out is fine with me. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll comment at the FAC. Ucucha 01:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD[edit]

Hello! As an admin, I was wondering if you could delete the page Huggle, Sweden for me. I have counted up the votes from its AfD entry and the choice is delete. Thank you very much, Belugaboy535136 ^contribs 02:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC) Note:Please get it done by 12:00 midnight tomorrow!! Thanks!! [reply]

I do not close AFDs, and have no inclination do close this one. An admin will certainly come along to close it, but his decision will depend on a reading of the informed consensus on the page, not merely on counting the votes—AFD is not a vote, and arguments with no ground in policy will have no weight. I don't know what the decision will be. Ucucha 03:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Belugaboy535136 ^contribs 11:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Adenhart[edit]

Alt text issues have been fixed, in case you want to give it another look through. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll have a look. Ucucha 19:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...[edit]

... for your thorough review at the Panellus stipticus FAC, it really helped improve the article. I just got that Cruentomycena paper we had discussed, and will soon be starting a new article for that genus. I'm a bit leery at the moment about including this genus on the P. stipticus phylogram; I don't know much about phylogenetic analysis other than what I've picked up writing about fungi, and am unclear whether the results of the data analysis is applicable from one phylogram to the other if the exact same methods haven't been used to produce it. Anyway, I plan to reproduce the paper's phylogram in the Cruentomycena article, and maybe you could have a look at it later and give me your opinion about this once you see the data. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that it just got promoted—congratulations! I think it's probably not a good idea to create a composite tree from two papers with different methodologies, but perhaps (I have not seen the Cruentomycena paper) it would be a good idea to replace the tree currently in P. stipticus with the one from the newer paper. I'll be happy to help out further if needed.

I'm currently working on getting the Noronha skink, a nice little lizard, ready for FAC. It's not quite there yet—I'm still working out what exactly all those scales with funny names mean, among some other issues—but could you have a look in a few days to check that the organization and general content is good? Ucucha 03:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good so far - I'll drop some notes on the talk page soonish. Sasata (talk) 03:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recat started[edit]

Just a heads up: I've listed the categories for rename/delete at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_February_6. Please drop by and check it out. Also, please help defend the rename request for stuff relating to hominids. I can see that one being contested more than the others. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have supported all three, and added some further justification. Let's hope it gets through—CFD can be a bit overcautious in deleting or changing categories at times. Ucucha 20:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional justifications and support (and everything else you've done!). BTW, the instructions at WP:CFD aren't very clear. Can/Should I start making the other changes, particularly with apes, Old World monkeys, and prosimians, as well as subcategorizing the families of New World monkeys, putting the new categories in their respective family categories (pending deletion)? – VisionHolder « talk » 17:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be cautious and not carry out the changes yet that are directly related to the CFD'ed categories. People could still object. However, I can't see a problem with you subdividing the OW monkey and lemur categories as proposed. Ucucha 17:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, could you please tell me at what point I should start subcategorizing the New World monkeys? By proposing a category deletion following a split, don't the contents need to be split first, then the parent deleted? Or will the Cfd nom be deleted and the contents be dumped into the parent category, leaving me to sort through them? The process isn't explained very well, especially for people doing large re-organizations like what we're doing. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure... I think the most sensible thing to do would be to add a note to the CFD to ask the person who closes the discussion to coordinate with you, so you can move each article to the correct category when the old ones get deleted. Ucucha 15:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Participation at my RfA[edit]

Thank you for taking the time to weigh in on my RfA. It was successful, in that the community's wish not to grant me the tools at this time was honored. I'm taking all the comments as constructive feedback and hope to become more valuable to the project as a result; I've also discovered several new areas in which to work. Because debating the merits of a candidate can be taxing on the heart and brain, I offer this kitten as a low-allergen, low-stress token of my appreciation. --otherl left 13:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello. You have a new message at Swarm's talk page.

Just in case...[edit]

...you didn't know, a word to the wise. Besides, its gnawing is driving your roommate crazy. Drmies (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid my credibility filter needs some tweaking: [4]. Well, she says that "They're not the right pet for most people." We should be happy that Josephoartigasia monesi is no longer around, because otherwise there would certainly have been people who would want it as a pet. Ucucha 21:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, do you talk like that to your family and your professors? These quick retorts with a rodent for every occasion? Whoa, a 2,200 pound rat! That's amazing. Well, here in the South, we'd probably organize hunts for them--though that beast is twice the size of our Monster Pig. Oh, that's a good indication of how big your beast really is. Whoa, a 2,200 pound rat! Drmies (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, why do you ask? Thanks for the link; it has stimulated me to start the long-needed crackdown against unreferenced biographies of giant pigs. Ucucha 02:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, good work. BTW, the more I look at the capybara, the cuter it gets. I think my backyard is big enough for one. I just flipped through thirty pages of Google Book hits on the Eastern harvest mouse, hoping I could find enough for an "In popular culture" section, but found nothing. Very disappointing, and it lends credibility to my theory that these rodents of yours simply don't deserve their own article; I might propose a merge of [[Category:Neotominae]] into Rat. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And rat needs a bit of a cleanup. I think there's two and a half reference systems going on in there. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The rat and mouse articles are poorly organized stuff I'll have to fix some day. They each conflate two topics: an actual biological genus (Rattus and Mus, respectively), and a folk taxonomic term.

The lack of cultural references to so many delightful little rodents is both perplexing and thoroughly sad: do something about it! The gentleman who mentioned Nesoryzomys indefessus in the House of Commons may be taken as an example for the good cause. Ucucha 02:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<--I've looked at a half a dozen Neotominae already, and nothing interesting pops up. Hey, your lovely Eastern harvest mouse--why does it not show up here? I have the feeling I'm missing something obvious. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because someone thought it a good idea to sort it under the "m" of "mouse". I changed it; I think it can only be confusing when everything in a category like Category:Fauna of Delaware and Maryland (we have a category on that) is under the part that ended up at the end of its vernacular name. Ucucha 02:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]