This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

---

Hello? That was interesting.... I am fed up with vandals, and being firm is the best way in my view. I am NOT impolite, but very determined. You can hug and cuddle them if you like, not me. History2007 (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Get off back buddy. History2007 (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On March 5, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Japanese lates, 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) 00:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a map for Russet Sparrow. If you need anything changing let me know. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saxaul was much harder! Much easier using coastlines to work out where to start/end. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the eastern part of the range still needs to be shifted. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 00:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

West or east? Sabine's Sunbird talk 11:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

West, I think. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, west, and there are some more problems on close examination. It seems the distribution given is the same as that in The Sparrows but less detiled, so maybe I'll make an entirelt new map some time. To remind you: with Desert Sparrow a map after the HBW, not The Sparrows is needed. I've tried making these maps, but it is slow (I have Inkscape, not Photoshop). If I can figure it out soon I'll try and make maps for some African sparrows (and ground squirels, they'll will be easier still). By the way, can you take a look at the older Birds for id sections at the bird talk page? These have been quite ignored. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inkscape, huh? never heard of it. I use MS Paint (or the Mac copy thereof). It is fairly crude but it does the trick. Looking again at my map of the Saxaul Sparrow the Eastern part of the range matches reasonably the HBW map, I'm happier with the east than the west. It would be nice to have some GIS programme or something. The desert sparrow range looks awful, I don't think I can do it (scattered spots across north Africa). As for the images for ID, like I said it isn't so much a case of people ignoring them as it is people simply not knowing what they are, but I'll take another look. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. If the Desert Sparrow has a spotty range, why not show dots? I probably can make a map like that, and have references for the Asian subspecies. I think I'll see to that one, some time or other. As for the ID, there are penguins and ducks, so it seems others are just looking at the more recent ones, such as the latest section of South American birds—all of which I've never heard of. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty is in placing the dots across the map accurately in the absence of clues like rivers, borders or coastlines. A similar problem to the Saxaul Sparrow, except at least there are some rivers I could use to work out where they had to go. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It will be easier for me, as I know Central Asia's geography decently and can refer to The Sparrows and other sources, —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for butting in but just to let you know that if you have a map in Orthonormal projection (that is map has a regular square grid) - you can use the locator map templates for spot distributions - I have tried one out at Marshall's Iora. Shyamal (talk) 09:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not siutable for the Desert Sparrow, but should be for other articles, eg, Chilostigma itascae. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I considered that for Mindomys, but it's not possible to do that in the taxobox. We'd need some extra code in the template to make it work. Ucucha 17:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outch! I'm really sorry, I totally forget to re-insert the picture after we discussed it on the biologist room, and confirmed you were right. Sorry --Chandres (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On March 7, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pygmy whitefish, 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) 12:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think at least a couple of those you're moving now should actually be at the scientific names? Ucucha 18:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I was assessing them, and it doesn't matter, if so. Speaking of squirrels, can you take a look at the unidentified squirrels at the Commons? I've been clearing out most of the eastern grey and red squirrels, but some are harder to identify. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be more efficient to wait a little with the assessing, as Xenobot will likely do much of the hard work soon (see the last thread at WT:RODENT). I'll have a look at the Commons squirrels (though not right now; I have to run). Ucucha 18:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Zenobot will do everything, as many pages still need to have {{MaTalk}} replaced or otherwise removed, and the {{Squirrels}} tag has further complicated the matter. I'll wait until after the bot is done and clean up. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of the rodent banner, do you think the project's to-do list should be added to the banner? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xenobot will go through all categories listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rodents/Category list and tag all pages in them. It will take over any assessments from other WikiProjects and assess anything with a stub template as a stub. We'll still have to assess importance and non-stub class, I think. I don't think we should add a to-do list as long as it's not actively maintained. Ucucha 22:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got a few: File:Im_Cold_and_Hungry_(316432306).jpg (fox squirrel), File:Streifenhörnchen_Zion.jpg (Uinta chipmunk), File:2005-02-16 Squirrel's tail 1.jpg (eastern gray). Many others look like easy fox or gray squirrels to me. But then there is commons:Category:Unidentified Tamias. Good grief. Ucucha 00:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've cleared Unidentified Sciurus of the easy to identify squirrels. There are lots of misidentified squirrels, especially fox squirrels. But, my, red squirrels are terribly cute things. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted another African Xerinae at the rodent talk page, and I'm curious to know what these are: File:5652-Linxia-City-market-chipmunks.jpg. Any thoughts? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say Tamiops. No idea how to tell species apart in that genus. I might look at some SA mammal books in the library in a few days to get an ID for that squirrel you posted at the project page. Ucucha 20:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On geographical grounds, it is most likely T. swinhoei, which is the only Tamiops that occurs near Tamiops. However, these animals may of course have been transported. Ucucha 21:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. For now I've marked them as plain Tamiops and added them to the genus page. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot that chipmunks (Tamias sibiricus) actually also occur in China. Could be either of those. Ucucha 21:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, they are most likely chipmunks, not Tamiops. Tamiops apparently doesn't have multiple stripes continuing on its face, and Tamias does. Ucucha 21:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've marked them as unidentified squirrels, probably T. sibiricus and removed them from Tamiops. `—innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion. You can probably just mark them as T. sibiricus, as they are not Tamiops and no other squirrel outside the Americas looks like that. Ucucha 21:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done so. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another image in that market also given as Siberian chipmunk. —innotata ( Talk • Contribs) 21:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for identifying those two - it's good to know whom I saw! :-) -- Vmenkov (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users like me and Ucucha find it good to know what images we have for each species. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of this one (from Illinois)? It's labeled as an eastern gray, but it looks slightly more like a fox squirrel to me (yellowish belly). The light is weird, though, and may be distorting things. Ucucha 21:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly better than you at telling them apart. I think it looks like a gray squirrel, but I'm not sure either (what are the best distinguishing marks, now?). Its shape, and general impression (jizz or gestalt), especially in the head is not much like that of a typical fox squirrel. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern gray tails are edged in white and fox tails are edged in brown. Eastern grays have a white belly (except when they don't). It looks to me like eastern grays also have a somewhat longer head than fox squirrels, and this one agrees with the eastern gray there. In close-up, it also has a white-edged tail (as well as something weird with its left ear). So you're probably right.

This one (from Zhejiang, China) would be interesting if we could identify it; it's not unlikely to be the only picture of the species we have. Ucucha 22:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you identified this one as an eastern gray. It looks more like a fox squirrel to me, with the yellow underparts and lack of white edging on the tail. The form of the head also looks more fox squirrely. Ucucha 22:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. Didn't take a close enough look, I expect, though it certainly looks a bit like a grey squirrel. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another that is a complete mystery to me: File:Sri Lanka Streifenhörnchen2.JPG. From Sri Lanka? Its title suggests so. It surely is not, as suggested in the description, a Siberian chipmunk. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 02:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is actually a palm squirrel in Sri Lanka, a young one then. It would be good to ignore the word "Sri Lanka" in the title, though, and I have no resources for making such an identification, —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 02:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually looking at that one too. Funambulus seems likely. It's not a chipmunk because it lacks stripes on its head. But I don't have a good resource on South Asian mammals now. Ucucha 02:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, it's Funambulus palmarum ([1]). There was also File:Sri Lanka Streifenhörnchen.JPG, which was already identified as F. palmarum. Ucucha 18:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of this? They were identified as eastern gray squirrels, but look like California ground squirrels to me. Ucucha 22:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose. This is a Funambulus palmarum, right? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a Funambulus pennantii. F. palmarum doesn't occur in West Bengal, and F. pennantii has five instead of three stripes. You can see that it has an additional, narrow pale stripe on its side. Ucucha 00:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. As for the rodent to-do list, maybe I could go and maintain it actively. I'm doing so for Template:Birds tasks. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 01:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could do it, if you think it'll serve a purpose (i.e., people will actually use the to do list to find pages to work on). Ucucha 01:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

stupidity really, I have preferences set to mark edits as minor by default, and I usually forget to untick. I suspect that if I changed the setting off, they would all be major edits for the same reason. (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't notice this earlier. I see. I thought there was some reason (you preferred minor changes) but then I saw Zapata Rail. I also forget to tick the minor edit box sometimes, and bird project editors probably know to expect "minor" edits to be yours… —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Innotata,

Under members list in Wikiproject Biography , your comment "The odd biologist or obscure historical figure" fits exactly the biography of Joseph Grinnell. The peer review page seems a bit quiet, ignored, empty even, so I'm taking a direct route. If you have the time to review this article, I would be grateful, if not I perfectly understand, as Wikipedia seems to consume all available time in a day ( for me anyway). I'll watch this page for your response. Sincerely, Marcia Wright (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not much of a reviewer. I listed myself at the project because of my 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica and 1900 Dictionary of National Biograpphy interests. Maybe I will take a look at the article; WikiProject Birds would be another place to look for reviewers. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 02:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can do a partial review of this one, so I'll see if I get time. There are lots of places to look for reviewers. By the way, "closet ornithologist" is a funny description of Grinnel—or any ornithologist. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 02:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any help would be greatly appreciated!!! I was trying to make a joke about "closet ornithologists" My job as a comedian did not last more than a few minutes. Anyway seriously- I left out the "ecological niche" information, he is creditied with coining the term. I don't quite understand it so felt wrong to try and write on it. Until I can explain the difference between habitat and niche, I'll leave that to better editors. I really enjoyed learning all that I did learn from researching/writing about him,(the hansome devil :).

Again, thank you for any time you can spare. Marcia Wright (talk) 02:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Innotata, What can I do, or what area of the article can I improve on the most, to upgrade it to a B-class? I've requested through the interlibrary loan program, Grinnell's Fur-bearing Mammals of California and some related books as well.If the worst problem is the sentence structure, should I ask for a copyeditor from another area in Wikipedia? I'd be okay with closing out the rewiew at a B-class rating. Sincerely Marcia Wright (talk) 15:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot about this again. The article is looking better, and it certainly is b-class, if it is not close to GA class. One place to find copyeditors is Wikipedia:Peer_review/volunteers#General_copyediting. I've never needed to look there, since other project editors have usually helped. I think you ought to look at good and featured articles of biologists to see what this article should be like (the only ornithologists, I think, are Georg Forster and Pamela C. Rasmussen). —innotata 15:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! And don't ever sell yourself short ("I'm not much of a reviewer"), your comments and suggestions were always thoughtful and valid and I appreciate the time you gave to this review. Best wishes, Marcia Wright (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 16 March, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Zapata Rail, which you recently nominated. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on the first FA (first of many I hope). Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, congratulations! I hope many will follow. Ucucha 23:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. First of many I hope too. I've just calculated that half the Passer species have enough material for FA articles, rather than just GAs, so I'm still looking at a featured topic. House, Spanish, Italian, and Cape are next in line for FA; Saxaul needs a teeny bit for GA. Do you know how much information I should put on distribution in the "Distribution and habitat" section of the last article, given that the details are in the "Taxonomy" section presently? I think I'll just do a bit, with the emphasis on habitat. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In articles were taxonomy sucks up a lot of the distributional info then yeah "distribution and habitat" will be more about habitat. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, an example to us all trying for such a large FT - maybe I should start a Hummingbird FT (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia lasts as long as those banners earlier proclaimed, I'll be looking forward to the already planned Battleship featured topic, plus a Bird featured topic… —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 16:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Hummingbird FT may be a joke, but surely a Swallow FT must be a possibility. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On March 23, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cape Sparrow, 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) 18:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing the Cape Sparrow article to Wikipedia (or expanding it); it was an enjoyable read. Since Summers-Smith is a non-online ref we can't easily check, it would be helpful to either inline cite the opinion about the bird's call or else quote Summers-Smith's words directly to make it clear whose opinion this is. It's not clear currently or I wouldn't have tagged it. --Griseum (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cited it to Summers-Smith, but I don't think a quote in the article would be good. WP:Citing sources says that usually, inline citations shouldn't be so dense, though they probably will be at Cape Sparrow eventually as I hope to bring the article to FA quality as part of a planned Passer featured topic. —innotata 21:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, this apparently subjective description is also used in most other sources on the bird, according to Summers-Smith. A similar situation existys with the apparently even more sweet-sounding Russet Sparrow, which has an FA. —innotata 21:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok fine. If another editor also finds this ambiguous I trust you'll consider it more carefully. Best, --Griseum (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone and changed it: this will be needed later, and another source verifies the statement. —innotata 21:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the UK and I have never seen fledgeling - ever. The article is in Commonwealth English and so I was adjusting the spelling to suit. 86.139.167.186 (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both are OK. Importantly, all my sources use fledgeling, and it seems logical to me. —innotata 21:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, fledging seems to typically be the adjective, and fledgeling the specialist but understandable noun. —innotata 22:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to use fledgling, I don't mind, but I'd like consistency of spelling with what is used in the other sparrow articles. —innotata 15:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And note, again, both are correct. —innotata 15:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hi,

I saw that you have been working on the April Fools DYK's, and i am so happy more people are helping out. I just wanted to remind you that April fools DYK's have a year to be expanded. The five day rule does not apply. Thank you for the help!--Found5dollar (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It says can be expanded some time over the past year. This certainly needs clarification; has this been well agreed? —innotata 15:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know, i am not sure, we may want to bring this to the April Folls DYK talk page. I was always under the impression that as long as it was 5x as big as it was on April 2nd the year before it is eligible, but i do understand what you are arguing. We may need a wider consensus on this.--Found5dollar (talk) 15:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took it to mean expanded within five days, but at any time over the past year. If this is the way it works, then a lot of large pages expanded quite slowly are eligible, and actual creations and expansions will be swamped. I don't know if anybody will notice on that talk page: should we ask at WT:DYK? —innotata 16:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

why not try both?--Found5dollar (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you go and ask? the current talk page is even more confusing. —innotata 16:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Posted... lets see what happens? Please keep on reviewing articles though, you are doing a great job weeding out ones that people would be floundering on for along time.--Found5dollar (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The marsh rice rat is now nearly done; I'll need to look up a few pieces in the library tomorrow and after that it can go to FAC. Would you mind having a look over it and checking whether there is anything missing or unclear? Ucucha 15:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Didn't notice this one. Nice article. I don't think I'll find much to comment on. —innotata 01:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On March 29, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bering cisco, 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) 22:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Hey, I noticed you tagged some of the squirrel range maps I've been making lately as candidates to be moved to Wikicommons, which got me wondering whether I ought to just do it when I first upload the file. I plan on making many more of these squirrel range maps. Should I upload them to Wikicommons instead of Wikipedia? How does one go about this? Thanks for a reply. --Saukkomies ^talk 01:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you have a look at what is going on with the fox squirrel ([2], [3])? If most of those are not fox squirrels, then I really don't know what a fox squirrel is. Ucucha 17:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm no better than you at identifying these, but I agree. Yes, if most are not fox squirrels, I don't know what a fox squirrel is—and I have them in my backyard occasionally. —innotata 17:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any very good mammal guides right now, but the awful Kaufman guide suggests we are right about this. Matt and the IP from the same town in Florida (hmm) seem to be confusing a southeastern morph of the species with the entire species. —innotata 17:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess he first commented anonymously and then created an account or logged in; no problem with that. I think we've come to the same conclusion: southeastern fox squirrels are very dark, and because others don't look like that Matt thinks they are not fox squirrels. Ucucha 17:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Specifically, most (but not all) southeastern fox squirrels are black with white face patches, and a red or a white belly, according to the sources I've loked at. —innotata 17:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kays and Wilson also say that, and it agrees with the picture Matt put in (although that one has more yellow underparts). Now we're at squirrels again, what do you think of this one? It's labeled as an eastern gray and it's an awful shot, but it looks a bit like a fox squirrel to me. Ucucha 18:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. —innotata 01:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tag it as unidentified Sciurus. Ucucha 18:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at some specimens in the mammal collection here today and now think it is in fact an eastern gray—fox squirrels have more bright colors even than this. We were amazed at the Delmarva Peninsula fox squirrel (like the one in the picture): it looks very much like an eastern gray. Southeastern fox squirrels are also striking; we have one that is almost completely black. Ucucha 22:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 April, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sussex dialect, which you recently nominated. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have many bird photographs, taken in the Ethiopian highlands, which I would like to have verified before I post. Is there a way I can get this done? It is difficult to be absolutely sure of identification with wheatears, cisticolae, prinia like warblers and seadeaters. Also what is the proceedure when I think a page has an incorrectly identified photograph and believe I have an appropriate photograph? (e.g pectoral patch cisticola) Br11n (talk) 04:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi innotata, the authority for the genus is Zarudny but the species author should be Severtzov in brackets. Shyamal (talk) 07:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, but remember the mention in the synonym box doesn't have space for this. —innotata 19:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to leave the authors out because of this. The synonym field is not well defined the taxobox documentation in any case. Shyamal (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I know why you are confused: you didn't notice the colon in "Ammopasser ammodendri: Zarudny" This means that Zarudny made the combination of the genus and species. (I only learned this from Ucucha, recently. —innotata 13:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure this is a standard practice. Shyamal (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is, according to Ucucha. A more detailed synonymy would not fit in the taxobox easily or match other articles. I don't think it mattered, or anybody realised, whether Zarudny's name was in reference to Severtvoz's or Gould's name. —innotata 14:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is fairly common for mammals; whether it's also common for birds I don't know. Ucucha 14:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any other way to display synonyms. What should I do here? —innotata 14:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do the Summers-Smith books or the HBW have long-form synonymies including new combinations? Perhaps you can follow the format they use. Or you can introduce the footnote as at Noronha skink#cite_note-18. Ucucha 14:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there is a recommendation 51G -example "Methiolopsis geniculata (Stål, 1878) Rehn, 1957." where Rehn placed the species in a new combination - http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/index.jsp?article=51&nfv=#3 - I have never seen this in taxonomic monographs on birds though. The synonym field has been a source of a lot of troubles because of varying interpretations - here is one debate because I used it for a pro parte synonym - Talk:Black_Drongo/GA1 & Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_life/Archive25#Synonym_field_in_taxobox Shyamal (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summers-Smith's books do have long synonymies, but the txobox won't fit anything like them—they rely on indentation and give citations to journals for most names. I think the footnote system is best. —innotata 16:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On consideration I've changed it to the style Shyamal mentions, though it takes up space, and I've only seen this used with plants. —innotata 17:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd include Sind Sparrow, which is pretty similar. I'd take out American Sparrows. they aren't that similar, and any reference is likely to be to NAm species only, (eg BNA) which looks a bit US-centric. Even if you find a source which includes South Am species, that raises the question of why you haven't looked for confusion species in other parts of the introduced range, like southern Africa. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding, but this wasn't much help. I'll figure something else out myself. I don't see why you suggest I look for confusion species in South America and Africa—sources with less geographic bias suggest there are few. I suppose the mention at the beginning of the article about the House Sparrow's shape will be sufficient info on American sparrows. —innotata 19:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On April 4, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Edward Nicolls, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Ucucha 18:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name explanation is from botanical genus Ammodendron, the sand acacia (derived from sand ammos and dendron for tree) and refers to desert habitat of species. <ref>{{cite book | last = Jobling | first = James A. | title = A Dictionary of Scientific Bird Names | publisher = [[Oxford University Press]] | year = 1991 | location = Oxford | pages = 10| isbn = 0-19-854634-3 }}</ref>. Will get to scanner soon, keep forgetting to bring book into work. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have enabled this feature for you. See Wikipedia:Rollback feature. Shyamal (talk) 07:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I just hope I won't accidentally click it instead of "undo"—just the sort of thing I'd do, and the only reason I didn't ask for it earlier. —innotata 14:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done that once or twice. Just rollback yourself straight away, it isn't a big deal, and makes it clear you goofed unintentionally. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you need it, there's also a piece of code that can hide the rollback links from your watchlist. Ucucha 00:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked around and think a biographical article on him is much needed. I am sure his dual career in birds and tribology should be an interesting DYK idea. Shyamal (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about it; I'll do it. I have his In Search of Sparrows, a sort of memoir, but there are very few (though some) secondary sources to use. —innotata 14:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything except the basics of his life in secondary sources, so I'll mostly have to rely on In Search of Sparrows. —innotata 23:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fine. These sources may have some extra bits - Shyamal (talk) 03:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Summers-Smith, J. D. (James Denis) (1997) A tribology casebook : a lifetime in tribology. London : Mechanical Engineering Publications. ISBN 1860580416
• http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/114190955/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
• http://www.teesmouthbc.com/Newsletters/tbcn035.pdf (page 7)
• http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/the-secret-life-of-sparrows-410252.html

Thanks for showing me the Teesmouth bird club newsletter. Hmm, Summers-Smith's favourite books are mine too. Glad to know he's seen the Saxaul Sparrow, which he hadn't seen when In Search of Sparrows was published—let's see if he makes it to Socotra, now that he's ninety! —innotata 14:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've started reading up on Theresa Clay. Since Mr. Nash hasn't replied to my request for her obituary, the article will focus on her relationship with Meinertzhagen. —innotata 23:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going away for the weekend, I'll see what I can find when I return Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

all I've got is paler than domesticus, not as pale as biblicus <ref name=BWP>{{cite book |last = Snow |first = David |coauthors = Perrins, Christopher M (editors) |title = The Birds of the Western Palearctic concise edition (2 volumes) |publisher = Oxford University Press |year = 1998 |location = Oxford |isbn = 0-19-854099-X }} p1061–1064</ref> Not recognised by Clements. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That should be good enough; the subspecies wasn't recognised by Summers-Smith in 1988, but it was in the HBW. —innotata 14:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Any advice is appreciated.--Runnerdux (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. The article simply needs a ton of work; I only made minor changes. The tone of the article ("Indian Runners love foraging") is not really appropriate for an encyclopaedic article. —innotata 16:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

p 1509 under Spanish. It gives no data except that relating to geographical variation in appearance - stable hybrid in N/C Italy, becoming more like Spanish going S (as described in your article, much variation in N Africa. Clements p 446 also has under Spanish, nothing except... wing length. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

search for LTER-ITALY 07 – PO RIVER DELTA which gives a pdf download Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is a reliable source (though I don't think the blocked websites are either). Furthermore, this site doesn't put this in enough context to properly verify this. So I'll probably have to leave this out of the articles. —innotata 16:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked in the new Collin's guide, but the map doesn't show anything in that area, so presumably not updated Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The old Collins guide called the Italian Sparrow a simple hybrid and didn't show its range. By the way, a list of pending AERTAC decisions had something interesting—a list of proposed Italian Sparrow subspecies. —innotata 13:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I know it needs some editing, but since I work from scratch and simply gathering what's there was an enormous amount of work, I'll let the community have a look and I'll be in for any improvements in the future. Thanks a lot for nominating it in the Did you know, this is great! Jean-Francois Gariepy (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I ought to thank you for adding these articles to Wikipedia. We're rather short of articles at Did you know, so I've been looking for them. In the future, can you nominate any articles you make that meet the criteria—1500 characters of prose, created or expanded 5x in 5 days, referenced—at Template talk:Did you know? —innotata 23:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. It's already my intention to go on with what I started; choose a biography that has not been made and come up with a complete text with sources and all the stuff I can find on the person. I'll certainly be happy to nominate my articles ! Jean-Francois Gariepy (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I added a picture to the nomination you just verified (thanks for verifying it!). Would you be able to quickly check it is still OK? Carcharoth (talk) 17:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've marked the image as PD-self, as it is the only public domain license you could have released it under. —innotata 18:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I found the page after looking through your "article incubator" and later noticed it on DYK. I've just created one of those articles you planned, J. Denis Summers-Smith, which coincidentally happens to be just below your nomination at T:TDYK. —innotata 18:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'd never heard of the ornithologist before - that is just a list of names for an award I read about. Don't have any real plans to create the articles for those people, but it is nice to see some of the red links turn blue. Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Gastropods for a Signpost article to be published in early May. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 03:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not listed as a member of the project. I haven't contributed much to gastropod articles, but I intend to some time. —innotata 15:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I included you in the interview announcement since you recommended the project at our WikiProject Desk. I just assumed you were also involved with the project. -Mabeenot (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On April 26, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article J. Denis Summers-Smith, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Ucucha 00:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more clear? I didn't quite understand what is it you want to be checked. Cheers. Pikolas (talk) 17:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes! I'm afraid my Esperanto isn't that good. I'm terribly sorry. Pikolas (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 27 April, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Salle Ventadour, which you recently nominated. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a moment and feel like commenting, the FAC for Lemur evolutionary history has been restarted. Your comments and/or support would be greatly appreciated. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 28 April, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Popular Independent Movement, which you recently nominated. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 08:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

On 29 April, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Henri-Étienne Beaunis, which you recently nominated. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC) This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.