This is an archive of past discussions with User:Shyamal. 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.
FA
Special thanks for helping to get this through - your image clearly tipped the balance, FA within hours of its addition! Jimfbleak (talk) 06:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I doubt very much if that was the cause. It was comprehensive and sufficiently well written to deserve it. Shyamal (talk) 07:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou
Hello Shyamal Many thanks for cleaning the images.More soon I hope but today I have acccess to real butterflies at last.No e-mail here and I don't know about the studio yet but I should get a few pics.Lycaenidae perhaps.Best wishes Robert
Hi Shyamal, sorry, I didn't get what you meant by "in Roman". Did you mean that the Tamil Wiki article should have its title in Roman? Or did you mean the title should be its common name and not the scientific name? By the way, form from this page, it appears that the Multibanded Krait is "kattu viriyan" in Tamil, do you have any idea? -- Sundar\talk \contribs03:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sundar, by Roman, I mean the "English script" as used here. See this from Common name
A binomial is a formal name, and it is the same the world over, independent of the language in use: a binomial is rendered italicised in Roman script, for example, Patella vulgata.
It is a convention and is followed for instance here ru:Беркут. You will have a lot of trouble with Tamil interwiki and I think you need to get the input of experts on the topic of interlanguage biological name usage. Regarding Katti Viriyan, it is quite a generic name - often even ascribed to the Kukri snakes. It is usually however mainly restricted to Bungarus caeruleus which is commonly seen in Tamil Nadu unlike the Banded Krait. Shyamal (talk) 03:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, it didn't strike me that you meant the Roman script. Yeah, we do almost always give it in Roman script italicised (it's even recommended in Tamil Wiki style guide), but rendering it in Tamil script alongside. Do you think that violates the convention? If so, let me suggest it to fellow Tamil Wikipedians. But, what will readers who don't know the Roman script do? -- Sundar\talk \contribs08:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I just saw the taxobox on [1]. That looks fine and I suppose that is because it has a good Tamil common name. Somehow the transliteration of scientific names to Tamil looks a bit contrived. It can also be tricky to pronounce some of these names. But I am unable to think of any better options. Shyamal (talk) 08:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it does look contrived, because we (per local policy) make it conform to Tamil phonetic rules whenever written in Tamil script. For those who wish to know the original pronunciation, audio, IAST, and/or another notation being discussed locally shall be provided. But, we're not there yet. -- Sundar\talk \contribs08:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Shyamal. You seem to have unprotected the birds template, so I'm guessing you could do the same for this one? It's annoying; there's no history of vandalism yet they fully protect it... Richard001 (talk) 07:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Shyamal What do we know of H.C. Tytler, author of Tytler, H. C. 1926. Notes on some New interesting Butterflies from India and Burma. Journal Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 31(30): 579-590.I can't find a thing Robert Notafly (talk) 07:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Tytler
Many thanks. I can get ODNB at the public library.Just as well since our library isn't sorted out yet. This pm I have been promised studio lights so I can replace the muddy photos I took yesterday, taking the view that a poor picture is better than none at all.We'll see how it goes. Have a good weekend Robert Notafly (talk) 09:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Uniramia
I'm only really familiar with our practices in the Dinosaur project, but basically we had decided on a general classification system to follow from one or two published sources that were recognized as representing current prevailing usage for most names, and update as any changes become widely accepted. Dinosauria, for example, has had various definitions that ultimately all describe the same clade, so the differences don't really matter. A more complicated situation would be Titanosauria, which has several names used to describe the same clade(s) with various uses of the ranked taxa. Here we're using the most inclusive sense and describing classification differences in the text, I think. If Uniramia is currently in an unused limbo by most or all researchers, removing the taxobox is the way to go, as in "obsolete" taxa like Pisces (which you mentioned) or Thecodontia. The difference is that as far as I know those taxa had never been defined as clades before they fell out of favor. If Uniramia has, I don't know what the justification would be for abandoning the name. I'd say the best bet in this case would be to list it as unranked and discuss in the text. But YMMV. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
Please accept this barnstar as my token of appreciation for your good-natured responses, in-depth research, and an overall brilliant idea which helped clean up the difficult problems associated with Uniramia no longer being a valid taxon. Thanks for all your help!
He was a Bengali and Bengalis do not pronounce Prashantha, rather do it without the h: Prashanta. But CRRao was a South Indian, and a South Indian would spell it as Prasantha. I think your move of the page was not correct even though you cited the spelling used by CRRao. I would suggest moving it back to the old spelling. GDibyendu (talk) 10:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that these variations occur, but believe that a valid reference outweighs such conventions. As I know it the Royal Society Biographies are quite careful on such matters making sure that spellings match with certificates and publications and would prefer that it is given its due. If however there is a reliable citation for the modified spelling that suggests that the eminent biographer was incorrect I think a move should be made. Thanks. Shyamal (talk) 10:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Common Onyx
Shyamal I think the Seitz pic of Common Onyx is the nominate and the collection pic the Malayan subsp.But I may be wrong. I will check in the collection on Tuesday.Got 20 or so pics of set butterflies on Friday but these are'nt downloaded from the camera yet.Off to walk my dog now.Hopefully back this pm with more from Seitz Chhers for now Robert
Shyamal Note comment Pratapa icetas Underside left. On the right is an image of the upperside of the very similar longinus" under the taxobox pic of this butterfly.Robert
Taking push to talk code. Very convenient. Too many vandals replacing my existing talks with their msges. This makes things simpler. Thanks. Prashanthns (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I see you have a lovely collection of illustrations you've created! I like the style, and I was wondering if you would consider a non-avian illustration of a newly discovered Maluku frogfish.
I've provided a link to two photographs (the top picture shows the fish with its mouth opened, and the bottom shows it with its mouth closed and its face flattened. so you can get an idea of what it looks like.
Patterned fishes are a little too tough and this one does not even have the required details visible, like finshape etc. Anyway here is a quick first cut. Not sure if it will serve your purspose. Will revisit it again if I find better reference sources. Shyamal (talk) 16:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you're right; this one is a bit difficult. I wish I had better photos for you to work with! Unfortunately, I couldn't find any public domain photographs for the Maluku frogfish article. I'm not sure that this one will do, since it isn't anatomically correct as far as the face shape. If you wanted to try again, I'd recommend looking at this image, because the anatomy is fairly similar: Just to clarify things a bit, this is the correct head shape. I don't have the fancy software you do, so that is why the background is black.
Sorry Bob, I think I have to give up on this one. The patterning is quite intricate, and I cannot do justice to this with Inkscape. This is slightly more easy on paper, but I have not been into that much for a long while. Sorry. Will revisit if possible - the patterning of the cryptic stripes is still very unclear. There seems to be a pattern to the randomness, but my knowledge of fish is too limited to see any clear rules except on the head where they seem to radiate away from the eyes. I am sure the chap must be really grotesque when he walks about on corals. Shyamal (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, thanks, anyway. I'll keep you in mind when I need something that doesn't have quite so much intracacy, because I really like your style. I must say, that last one you posted looks like it could be a real kind of frogfish! Great shape. The head is still the wrong shape, but it looks like a typical frogfish. The unfortunate part is that the head of the one you were working on looks more like a pancake, and it's the only frogfish I know of like that, so I can't find any other reference shots for you. Again, thanks for your effort. Even though it's not right, it's still beautiful. By the way, the rest of the fish looks right (even though you didn't finish striping it)! Hope to work with you again on another project. Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Because I hate to leave someone confused, I decided to try to fix the shape of the head so you understand what I am talking about. Have a wonderful day! Don't worry about this project. Do something more relaxing!
Ok, Let me know when the species description paper is available. That is usually what helps. Btw, the Maluku frogfish article is perhaps a bit premature since the new description is yet to be published ! Shyamal (talk) 01:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I usually have a hard time finding these description papers, but I've been watching for something for this species since they haven't given it a name yet...I gather this I need a species description paper in order for it to qualify? Or just a species authority tag? Because I definitely cited several references. Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 03:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Shyamal: I'd do as you suggest, but I think this only applies to the North American list. FYI, one of the reasons ABA didn't have a problem is because we've clearly identified them as the primary source of the information... MeegsC | Talk06:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Shyamal I have uploaded a higher resolution image of P paris tamilana and may replace it again if time permits.I thought I suggested you shouldn't bother with cleaning, but if it is not too much trouble it may be just as well since I am never too sure what equipment I will have or time for that matter so I just upload as I go along. The image of tamilana upperside look s pale on my Viao at the side of the taxobox pic but the Sony screen is X black whatever that means.Sensitive to viewing angle certainly.Very best regards Robert Notafly (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Shyamal You don't use image links much on the India butterfly pages.I came across these excellent images of balkanicus [6] which would be hard to better and some of your India taxa may lack photographs for a very long time. Do you have a policy on this or are you just time limited? Photographs and other images are so very important in butterfly studies.Robert I have a sore arm today after some yoga on Monday. So this is short Very warm regards Robert Notafly (talk) 08:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Plasmodium
Hello Shyamal That's clear and I will go ahead accordingly.Now one more thing. There is a message titled Anopheles on my talk page and I very much wish to respond, though there is a lot of work here for someone (probably the best start would be the Walter Reed hospital)but the user is anonymous so how? Himalayas.How wonderful.I will e-mail you Monday. Hope to post he new photo of Pazala eurous in a few minutes.All th best Robert Notafly (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
There is a fair bit of Ronald Ross legacy material on www.archive.org apart from other historic material on malaria research. The best way to respond to anonymous folks is to write the talk response on your own page and assume they would check - like my response to you here. best wishes. Shyamal (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The May 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject History of Science newsletter : Issue IV - May 2008
A new May 2008 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is hot off the virtual presses. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I see you're listed at the Peer Review volunteers page with an interest in evolution; I wondered whether you'd mind having a scan of this article and seeing what you think? Thanks, Smith609Talk12:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Shyamal The photo I put on the genus page of Chrysozephyrus does not do this astonishing butterfly justice. It is like a tiny Morpho but metallic green.Compare the two noting the ripples on the wing.Truly they are marvels of nature.Would you be kind to it and fix it's tiny broken left tail? Hope you approve of my links to the Philippines page. These are excellent id photos. It will soon be time for your Himalaya adventure, another marvel of nature.No excuses. You must go. Slainte Robert.
Lord Shyamal Read my sad story Morpho aega and bring back my beauty.My right wing is greener and darker than my left which is how I really look. It is just my injury which is sad. Robert Notafly (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC) is my messenger.
Will try, but this is probably dependent on angle of wings and lighting used in photography. Maybe better to leave the original colours. Shyamal (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for you work as a peer review volunteer. Since March, there has been a concerted effort to make sure all peer review requests get some response. Requests that have gone three days or longer without a substantial response are listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I have three requests to help this continue.
1) If you are asked to do a peer review, please ask the person who made the request to also do a review, preferably of a request that has not yet had feedback. This is fairly simple, but helps. For example when I review requests on the backlog list, I close with Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, ...
2) While there are several people who help with the backlog, lately I have been doing up to 3 or 4 peer reviews a day and can not keep this up much longer. We need help. Since there are now well over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, if each volunteer reviewed just one PR request without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog. To help spread out the load, I suggest those willing pick a day of the month and do a review that day (for example, my first edit was on the 8th, so I could pick the 8th). Please pick a peer review request with no responses yet, if possible off the backlog list. If you want, leave a note on my talk page as to which day you picked and I will remind you each month.
3) I have made some proposals to add some limits to peer review requests at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Proposed_limits. The idea is to prevent any one user from overly burdening the process. These seem fairly reasonable (one PR request per editor per day, only four total PR requests per editor at a time, PR requests with cleanup banners can be delisted (like GAN quick fail), and wait two weeks to relist a PR request after it is archived), but have gotten no feedback in one week. If you have any thoughts on these, please weigh in.
Shyamal Very nice photos indeed. I especially liked the Giant Honey Bee an the cat. The Lycaenidae are tricky but I'll send suggestions.THe best way is to decide what they aren't and therefore might be.Are any of the landscapes Parnassius localities? If so I would like them on the appropriate pages.Struggling with Eerbia and Hesperiidae today.Warm regards Robert Notafly (talk) 08:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
How was your trip? The wagtail pics are brilliant, and the three I've seen, alba, yarelli and leucopsis look spot-on. I'm a bit pushed for time this a.m., but I'll get back to you later. jimfbleak (talk) 05:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Nice pics, the tortoiseshell and painted lady look very similar to ours, but wouldn't have a clue for most of the others. The only photos of the races I know of are those in the article or at commons. What's the plan with the drawings - do you intend to replace the thumbs in the ssp table - that would certainly look good, with consistency of appearance. jimfbleak (talk) 09:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I wonder how valid it is. BWP has dukhunensis illustrated, but obviously doesn't reach eastern Siberia. Arlott shows eight ssp, but neither of these. jimfbleak (talk) 10:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Even in the UK, with just two ssp, you really need to see the rump to be sure of a first-year female alba, since yarelli in that plumage looks quite similar. jimfbleak (talk) 11:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The June 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 13:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Rufous-crowned Sparrow Sketch?
Shyamal,
Hey. Sorry to bother you (again), but I was wondering if you would be willing to do a quick sketch of the Rufous-crowned Sparrow. I've been working on the article and am aiming for a GA for my namesake, but do not know of any free images of the species after checking Commons and Flickr. If you want to do it, there are some photographs here. Additionally, there is a good sketch of the species at the blacklisted Whatbird website, which is on the first page of a Google Image search for the species (hopefully this will make it past the censors. First try failed). Feel free to give me a holler if I can do anything for you. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay- I had a long day yesterday. Anyways, thanks for doing the sketch. Just one minor problem- could you make the white/grey eyebrow stripe a bit greyer and darker as it approaches the eye? Other than that, I think you did a beautiful job. If you don't mind, I'm going to go ahead and put it in the article and on my userpage (with credit to you, of course). Thanks, and good luck with ant (I may review in a day or two). Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
That's the way it is. FA writers, like Casliber and me, are prepared to help out, but some regular FA editors never write anything constructive, and see their role to criticise rather than help. I read through in Wiki Ed, and picked up a few more bits, good luck - let Casliber know if you haven't done so, and RCS is a a careful but constructive reviewer jimfbleak (talk) 10:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
A couple of general points. Most of the ref formatting problems were for books, using citeBook avoids those. Secondly, Firefox's in-line English dictionary underlines spelling queries in the edit text in red, and is invaluable for picking out American spelling, which it treats as errors (correctly imho) jimfbleak (talk) 12:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for those. The crime I made is to download the American dictionary. I am not sure how I get the BrE dictionary to dislodge the AmE dictionary within Firefox ! Will try. Shyamal (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I see you've reverted some more of [AzLehrer]'s edits. I've notified one of the admins who helped institute the ban on him for sockpuppetry, but the use of anonymous Israeli IPs is problematic. He's been banned from both the English and French Wikipedias, and simply will not go away. Dyanega (talk) 05:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I am somehow ok with removal of mentions of his name on the talk page, if the right to Wikipedia:VANISH can be extended a bit. Good to be a bit considerate and forgiving. Shyamal (talk) 06:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
For all the work you do to present the world the birds and butterflies and other lifeforms of South Asia and elsewhere. Marvellous job! Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. You probably deserve it more for reviewing and weaving in the latest research papers into the many articles ! Shyamal (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Nuthatch
I've started working up Nuthatch, and I wondered if you would be prepared to produce images for one or two of the species still without a pic? Do you think there is any point having a map for the family as a whole, or is that silly? Thanks jimfbleak (talk) 14:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Most certainly. Just let me know which ones to cover, point me to resources and I will give it a try. It really makes sense to put them all on one map to see how allopatric the species are and get an idea of how close species are to each other and to get an inkling of identification difficulties in the hybridization zones. Shyamal (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Chrysiridia rhipheus
Thank you for the invitation, but I had attempted this a while ago... the message I get is "This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users." Thank you for the best wishes. If listed I think it'll be one of the first about an insect! Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 11:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
The "last word" depends on whether you want to be technical about it. "Exuviae" is a plural word; there is no singular form, technically. But that is incredibly awkward and totally impractical. Going with "Exuvia" as a singular form is more acceptable, even if technically incorrect. Dyanega (talk) 06:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
certainly this article cant stay titled as is, but how about a move to "List of common spiders" ? It's still nontechnical and lists only a few, but it would be useful to the non-biologist. A suitable heading should be added to explain. I've deferred moving and deprodding to wait for your comment. DGG (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Common is a term that is rather difficult to define, not to mention that it is often region specific. As I said, attempting to produce the full list of 40,000 species is meaningless as it would be mostly red links. The category spiders and its subcategories would cover most of the "common"/"popular" species as articles for these most likely already exist. A legitimate encyclopaedic article that I can think of is an article on the classification of spiders going down to the family level (and can include a few examples species and images). This article could then also accommodate what lies in the identifying spiders article. Shyamal (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
sorry, I did find the history. Yes, there is something wrong--you seem to have completely ignored the closing of the AfD on the article, which said the material should be retained. Retained, that is, as a nontechnical list, which you seem to have replaced with a more scientific classification in alphabetic order. This needs discussion, got discussion, and the consensus seems to have been against you. Now, I'm not altogether neutral, as I took the position that the nontechnical material was needed, but I don't think you're doing this right. Right would be to have both lists, allow for improvements on the nontechnical one, and if you still want to delete it , to try another afd in 6 months or so to see if consensus has changed. I really dont want to fight you on a area where you know the specifics of a subject and I do not, but not everything in Wikipedia has to reflect scientific nomenclature. You did give a good argument against the word "types" & I certainly know enough biology to understand & agree that a technical term shouldn't have been used in a similar context with a totally different meaning. Perhaps we can think of another title than "types..." to restore the previous material to. DGG (talk) 02:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I am all for non-technical introductions to scientific content. The problem is that a "List" type article cannot be expected to introduce people to content. One of the things I did try to point out is that the spider article already gives a reasonably non-technical introduction to the spider groups. As I saw it, the consensus was definitely that the content/title needed change. That this would radically change the nature of whatever the article was attempting (some felt it was hunting strategies, some thought it was a lay-introduction) is why I marked this for AfD rather than quietly fixing the content. There are 111 families of spiders which have lists under Category:Lists_of_spider_species and the current list acts as an index. Naturally the article is open to improvement and I have no problems if someone wants to improve the content, and it is open to discussion and reversion. I had posted information on this on WT:SPI also. Shyamal (talk) 03:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Additional clarification - I would welcome articles on the line of Folk taxonomy of spiders or List of common names of spiders or suchlike, but I think those interpretations are of the original author's intent are further off from the interpretation made in my last few edits. I believe that this would at least make it possible for any editor to expand and improve upon unlike the earlier version. Here is another analogy, which may not require the same level of subject knowledge - what should be done to a stub of the following form:
List of kinds of human beings
Human beings can be classified as
Does the article indicate scope clearly? If not - can it really be expanded by others?
Should it be deleted?
Should it be modified to specify the scope?
I have given some thought to this and my conscience is clear, if it cannot be deleted, it surely cannot stand with unclear scope if it is to be a multi-editor encyclopaedia. Shyamal (talk) 06:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Nuthatches
looks good, maybe Velvet-fronted is a bit dark below? I don't know if I can sort out map data this weekend, but there's no rush anyway. I also have someone doing me a drawing of Krupers, so the gaps are filling! many thanks jimfbleak (talk) 09:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I am producing both the split and combined versions. Inkscape is the open source software that I use. http://www.inkscape.org - right now I like to keep them together so I can use one as a template for another and also ensure that differentiating characters are carefully illustrated. Shyamal (talk) 11:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I hadn't really started a literature search, but that's a really useful article. I'll look at Inkscape when I get a bit more time, didn't realise it was open source. Enjoy Scandinavia. jimfbleak (talk) 05:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Good luck with the ant FA attempt. I will be going on holiday soon for just over a week so will not be able to contribute. In my opinion the article has improved hugely from the FAC review and that is an achievement in itself. It is the first FA candidate I have been involved in, quite an education! GameKeeper (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind offer, I've got a scanner, so I'll scan the relevant pages and crop those that we already have to reduce file size. Let me know if any problems, I'll post here to let you know when email sent jimfbleak (talk) 09:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Thinking again about a map, I'm not sure how practical this would be, although Harrop obviously gives range maps for all all species.
If you show species, there will be problems of overlap and scale - even in NAm, with only four species, there is much overlap (all the ranges are shown in the Cornell or ADW links). In Eurasia, there are huge differences of scale (Eurasian v White-browed or Algerian) and real complications in southern Asia, with all those species.
To show the range of the family as a whole would be straightforward (I could colour in a blank map by hand and send it to you for a proper job), but I'm not sure how informative this is - basically almost all non-Arctic NAm and Eurasia, plus two dots in Africa.
Anyway, you've taken on enough for now, and a map isn't essential even at FA, so we can think about that later - enjoy Scandinavia, jimfbleak (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
The February 2025 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. --Addbot (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Truly amazing
Your artwork on birds is truly amazing and commendable. Keep it up! If you'd be curious how I reached your user page...that was when I saw your name in the participants list of project:Biology as I wanted an appropriate template for involuntary action. Your name is somewhat a common in India! And, hence the curiosity.
"Rarissima avis"—my thoughts, or rather initial guesses as to what it could mean:
Name of some bird--thinking you must be alluding to some image done by you that didn't satisfy you.
But, that seemed so irrelevant. Tried to guess its meaning..."a rare bird"
Why am I struggling so much? I have the world's largest and greatest encyclopedia at disposal. Wikipedia turned in nothing. Same with Wiktionary, thefreedictionary.com, answers.com, answers.yahoo.com. google.co.in
Guessed from results of Google that it could mean "a good news".
Upon some more effort, have concluded that it means "a rare occurrence". Waiting for your affirmation.
By the way, I am not exactly a science person if one takes the narrow academic sense of the term, especially the way it's applied in India (just completed my MBBS). But, of course don't mind being recognized as a science person, or still better a scientific person. I told you about the name "Shyamal" having an Indian origin as I wasn't sure if you're an Indian considering you've displayed English as your native language.
Lastly, excuse my ignorance of English (I suppose, actually, Latin) that I couldn't get perfectly well what you'd meant.
I'm very impressed with your user page, but wouldn't be sure if it's alright for the matter to be there. It somewhat shows India in a bad light (though quite accurately so), but then what problems you've tried to point out have their roots so deeply in the economy, and the resultant fundamental mindset of an average Indian. Like how many people are interested in the basic sciences in the first place? And, moreover, what infrastructure do we have to promote studies in science, or for that matter any field of academics? Employability—the single most important factor for choosing one's vocation in India (and may be, even elsewhere) is restricted to so few fields. Take me for instance, the articles to which I've made largest contributions (polyclonal B cell response and clone) though related to the medical field are more intimately related to cell biology, by which I mean, though I was always interested in cell and molecular biology, it's the "other" factors that made me take up medicine as a career (which I don't regret). How many people actually introspect what are their aptitude and true calling before and after choosing a field?
Well, if you might be feeling I was beating around the bush, then let me state what's on my mind in a nut shell: that even though the government is not providing access to research work and not promoting science, in great parts that's because there's no demand from the "junta" (the laity, may I), and somewhat because of its (the common person's) complacent attitude.
Ideally, I wouldn't have liked to broadcast my personal opinions here, but then I don't know of any forum/platform through which I could've communicated with you.
Yes, I do happen to be live in India! And yes, I was referring to "Indian wikipedians" with an interest in science as rare birds and hardly surprised by your experience. Good luck and hope you find wikipedia as good a collaborative research platform as I have found it. Shyamal (talk) 12:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Interesting that google for Rarissima avis produces nothing explanatory! Rara avis exists here List_of_Latin_phrases_(P-R). The latin suffix -sima is very so very rare bird. Adding it to the list, hope someone can add a WP:RS to it. Shyamal (talk) 12:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
No doubt, Wikipedia is a nice platform for collaborative work as well as for individual enterprise. In fact, it's quite addictive that's the problem. By the way, what about my "longer" part of the message?
I might require some guidance with illustrations when I download Inkscape in a couple of days, but that won't be for any bird, but for polyclonal B cell response, which is up for FA-nomination. Hope you'd be able to help.
Sure, will be able to help with SVG. I have nothing contrary to what you have to say about science, education and knowledge in India (which may well be more universal, judging by what is said here http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/66), but there are only some things that can be done by individuals and WP is one of the few outlets for that ! Right now I am travelling and unable to help you much. But I will give a read of the article when I can. Off for now. Good luck with the FA. Shyamal (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Shyamal, Well, I seem to be at it again! :-) After limiting myself to maintenance for a while, I first put some more time into Agkistrodon piscivorus and now I seem to have gotten it into my mind that I can do the same thing to the Boidae series as I did to Pythonidae. However, wanting to play by the rules this time, I've suggested that 14 of those articles be moved to their scientific names (don't worry, none of them are subspecies). I expect there will be some resistance, so I was wondering if I could count on your support. :-) Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 13:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Basically, I used these lists -- List of boine species and subspecies and List of erycine species and subspecies -- checked all the articles for common names (32, including Boa), found 14 candidates (including Boa) and left move proposals on the associated talk pages. So far there has been opposition in only two cases, but I plan to wait another two days before taking any action, so that number could still grow. For now, you could help simply by adding your voice of support to the various move proposals. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 10:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
If you can spare time, please give your opinion on the THH talk page!
A user has deleted the 'Quotes' section near the end of Thomas Henry Huxley, and I would like some opinions on this. The content is listed on the Talk:Thomas Henry Huxley page (section 18).
Obviously, such a section is unusual, but there are good reasons for having it in the case of THH. First, it improves the biography by making it easier to understand the man: this would not be true of most scientists, but it is true of Huxley. Second, he was, and still is, quoted extensively. Some individual quotations of Darwin may be seen more often, but the range of topics in Huxley is not easily matched. Thirdly, unlike my critic, I don't think it contravenes
the 'Wikipedia is not a directory' policy, and if it did I would argue that policy should be a guide, not an absolute. Options, it seems to me, are:
1. section deleted, as now is
2. section reinstated, as was
3. section shortened and reinstated
4. create a linked page 'Huxleyana' to put it in, flagged on the main page
5. put it in Wikiquote (I am against this, both on grounds of remoteness (being on a different system, and little used, and on grounds that Wikiquote has developed into s place for longer excerpts taken from web sources)
Same user changed character of the Biographies section. This is a less significant change, but your thoughts are welcome. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I think the way to work this is to just go with the current policies and use quotes inline with text rather than as a separate section. I did that with Allan Octavian Hume and so far no major deletions have happened. Shyamal (talk) 09:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
message
I'm sending this to all the wikiproject:mammals participants. There's a naming guideline up for discussion on the talk page, and the more people get involved the more valid any consensus drawn. Ironholds19:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Map
sorry, I should have said, but you guessed right. map looks great. Would it be possible to do one of the following (whichever is easiest)?
remove the two existing labels
add cristata (the eastern bit), enigma (Mozambique) bergii (rest of southern African range)
But I don't appear to be able to upload the svg properly - only the added labels appear, and there seems to be requirement for two files to be involved. When I sent myself the svg (inkscape icon) by email as a test, the download claimed that it couldn't find an assocaited file. The current png is so rubbish that the unlabelled version would be better. I'm completely baffled. Having created the labels, I assumed all I had to do was to save and upload, but... jimfbleak (talk) 06:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
No I haven't. But since the WP pages on Parnassius were image enhanced I have been offered a lot of specimens of dubious origin, especially Parnassius autocrator often from East Europe or China.We will wait and see what the court has to say.One thing though a lot of entomologists come to Ireland without informing us of their intentions or findings, which doesn't help either party.How is Oslo other than being cool? I am off to Rome for August and the first week of September.Warm regards, Robert.Notafly (talk) 10:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Bug
No, but when I was at the Central Sciences Laboratory in York last year I saw very many insects, from China especially, taken from tree and plant nurseries.These finds are never published and entomologists employed by Government who find plant pests now have to inform the Department of Agriculture (as was) who decide whether publication can proceed. They say no.The speed of spread does not surprise me.Some years back the two-spot ladybird, not previously known as an Irish insect appeared on a hedge near the University in Belfast.Two years later it was very common there and also found 100 miles away. Now it is everywhere. The scarlet lily beetle is here too now, also spreading rapidly.Must e-mail you soon Warm regards Robert PS. I will be in Rome for August nd early September—Preceding unsigned comment added by Notafly (talk • contribs) 16:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Re taxobox on Diptera Pages
I think they are informative at infraorder and lower for someone not familiar with insect classification, especially when looking at a species page in isolation. Personally am more interested in tidying up the Order to species ranks, but it's also nice to have some low level consistency - But I take your point.
Mark—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark-mitchell-aldershot (talk • contribs) 16:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Snake move problems
It looks like I've earned the attentions of an over-zealous and administrator. I first encountered him here, where he sounded okay at first, admitting that he only had it on his watchlist because he once added an image to it, even saying that he would help if there was a consensus in favor. But, then he become overly-principled and started to follow me around, opposing all of my subsequent move proposals and now he has becoming a real problem. After proposing a move for Calabar Python to Charina reinhardtii, I had a vote of 3 to 1 in favor, with him the only opposing voice. I waited three weeks and then moved it. Nevertheless, he has now reverted it (as well as Anaconda) because he believes that, at best, there was "no consensus" (because he was citing WP's official naming policy, I believe). Here's the latest exchange. He's being difficult for no good reason, insisting that I take all such moves through WP:RM (which is not a requirement). This is making things increasingly and needlessly difficult for me. Nobody has improved that series of articles more than I have, and I believe contributors have the right to ignore all rules if they feel the rules prevent them from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. I'd appreciate if you could help. Thanks, --Jwinius (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Jaap, I am afraid this request will not make things any better. Page moves do not require a vote, just remember that the general usage of the talk page is for discussing edits and not to pre.empt any reverts. What is the rationale for the move? Maybe you need to focus on that - if Calabar python referred to several subspecies or if there are too many common names with confused cross-species usage, then maybe you have a clear reason for the move. Take the discussion to the amphibian and reptile project or Tree of Life and see what specific circumstances may support the use of scientific name titles. In the absence of a clear policy for or against scientific names, clarity of reasoning is the only way for a case-by-case decision. Explicit voting for move decisions is not an accepted process and it would be good to step back and see the whole issue from the point of view of transient (as all of us ultimately will be) non-specialist editors. Shyamal (talk) 03:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Added another cite for the bimodal size polymorphism in Oecophylla
Hi, yes sorry about that. I got distracted by a nice tree snake in the garden. I've added another cite for the bimodal size polymorphism in Oecophylla so we are covered on both living species now and an extinct one.Sean.hoyland - talk03:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Nuthatch
Thanks again for your continuing input to this, it's actually looking quite positive now, six supports, and only Tony's routine oppose, which I don't imagine he will change. Still in Norway? jimfbleak (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Welcome. Only reason for my not adding another support is my involvement in it! Yes I am here for another three to four weeks. I am looking forward to some local natural history discussions with User:Petter Bøckman. Now that is something I should thank WP for ! Shyamal (talk) 06:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
We made it, almost as straightforward as, say, ant (: I felt at times that we were going in circles, and the mad late attack on comprehensiveness from Ottava Rima had me biting my tongue before responding. Greater Crested Tern is next, just waiting for Sabine's to look at HANZAB, but he's trapped in his flat by a tropical storm! thanks for all your input, jimfbleak (talk) 05:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm inclined to leave the map as it is for now. It's not a requirement to have a map for FA (nuthatch, ant), it only claims to be approximate and the two sources don't agree anyway. It's certainly good enough for purpose. I'd be surprised if there are any comments on the map, it's the text that will cause grief jimfbleak (talk) 05:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Nuthatch
It actually started FAC as a genus, so I'm not bothered about its return to that taxon level. Just relieved it went through, Main Page is a bonus. jimfbleak (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Antennarius_striatus.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Dfrogfish%26ni%3D20%26ei%3DUTF-8%26fr%3Db1ie7%26xargs%3D0%26pstart%3D1%26b%3D81&w=500&h=377&imgurl=static.flickr.com%2F1208%2F1359689590_259c72f06b.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fdouga%2F1359689590%2F&size=181kB&name=clown%20frogfish&p=frogfish&type=JPG&oid=828048b70407e506&fusr=doug.deep&tit=clown%20frogfish&hurl=http://www.flickr.com/photos/douga/&no=92&tt=13715){kind=link}