Hi, I noticed that you just reverted Template:Taxobox; I've checked the pages that you linked in the edit summary; two appear to function fine if I use Template:Taxobox/sandbox, and one doesn't Template:Taxobox (but rather Template:Automatic taxobox). If you could confirm that they now work, or point me to the error if they don't, that'd be really helpful.
They work now, with this edit of yours. Please try not to temporarily break all the taxoboxes on Wikipedia next time you make a correction to that template. Ucucha19:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ucucha, this is a notice that we would like to start another WP:MAMMAL collaboration soon. If you could go and vote, and help us out when the collaboration begins, that would be much appreciated! Thanks! The Arbiter★★★18:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to leave the choice of the collaboration to others, and will see whether I have anything to contribute after the collaboration has been chosen. Ucucha18:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, but remember that you’re free to vote! :) If you could at least take a look at the collaboration nominations, it would be great! Cheers, The Arbiter★★★18:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ucucha, Hmallison is the driving force behind this page --> Plateosaurus, and will be a first timer at FAC - figured crossing all the 't's and dotting all the 'i's (English idiom :)) would be prudent before exposing him and it to the snake pit...all input appreciated. cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, don't worry about hurrying. I just wanted at least one set of eyes before FAC. If someone else greenlights it it might be there sooner rather than later, cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
y0 br0 Wh4zzup i just w4nn4 tell y0u h0w im feeling, g0tt4 make y0u underst4nd
Never gonna give you up
Never gonna let you down
Never gonna run around and desert you
Never gonna make you cry
Never gonna say goodbye
Never gonna tell a lie and hurt you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.186.113.34 (talk) 17:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problems are not shown on the template as such. The issue is one of determining quality sources. It started when I noticed that both the Emydidae and Geoemydidae articles had the claim 'the largest and most diverse family of Testudines'. Now you'd think one of them is incorrect but as things progress books sources for this claim on both families was found. Then NYMFan found a book source Talk:Emydidae#90_species_of_emydidae, we couldn't account for 90 species and digging deeper found more sources (books and online) that match that claim. Your best to read Talk:Emydidae#90_species_of_emydidae, but in short some sources consider the Geoemydidae family as part of the Emydidae - so that begs the questions should we also. Then there is similar problem of sources in Testudines when making the connection of where some of the families fit in the order is unclear and possibly unsourceable. Regards, SunCreator(talk)16:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know any details about the turtle taxonomy. You'll have to see what the best recent taxonomic sources do: do they include Geoemydidae in Emydidae or do they recognize both as families? It seems, in any case, that Geoemydidae would be the most diverse family if it is recognized as separate, but Emydidae would be if it includes Geoemydidae. Ucucha16:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I'm The Arbiter, one of the coordinators for WikiProject Zoo. I am proud to announce the launch of a new portal: Portal:Zoos and Aquariums! ZooPro, ZooFari, and I worked hard to create a new portal for information on zoos, aquariums, and the associated projects and articles on Wikipedia. If you could head on over, take a look at our work, and maybe learn some more about zoos and Wikiproject Zoo, it would be great! Cheers and Happy Editing!
Hey Ucucha, how you doing? Long time no see. Are you not active at DYK anymore? And are you celebrating X-mas in the motherland, all covered in snow? Drmies (talk) 23:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, not much. So much to do, so little time. I'm actually celebrating Weihnachten in an even more snow-covered land to the east, but I'll be in the motherland for a week sometime in January. How about you? Ucucha23:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'll be here. Little snow, no doubt, but I can make my own Gluhwein. Did I ever warn you about the pitfalls of dating German women? We may need to talk. I hope your semester went well, and that you are taking fun classes in the spring. Alles gute! Drmies (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Danke schön. No, you didn't, but I think I'll do fine. I had a great semester, learning Spanish, doing biology, reading Russians, and programming, and the last final was today, which is even better. Ucucha01:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good to hear. Don't say I didn't warn you. Talked to my buddy in Angstydam yesterday--the snow is wonderful. Merry Christmas! Drmies (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Ucucha, hows things? I have just been made aware of discussion on wikispecies here. That I feel may need an admin/crat to comment on, It involves an administrator in a bit of conflict with another user. I am not yet part of the discussion however I will shortly be giving my opinion. I would appreciate if you could look over the discussion. Cheers ZooPro02:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stho002, I am afraid, has a tendency to force his own opinion through. I have unprotected the page and will post on the talk page. Ucucha02:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed. Not sure what to do now—I don't want to get into a wheelwar over there. In any case, I've asked another WS admin to have a look. Ucucha02:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, could you please take a look at User:Shyamal's comments at the Goldcrest FAC? I don't know whether you can help with the BBOC stuff, which may not be of great relevance anyway, but I'm trying not to leave any stone unturned. If you have access, It would be great if you could email something to me. Merry Christmas, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC) — I thought I'd posted this days ago, but I seemed to have put it on my own talk page Jimfbleak - talk to me?07:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to be abroad then, so I'll just have to hope that it doesn't derail the FAC, I can't believe there's anything of great importance that isn't in the recent sources, thanks anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me?07:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then it could be the common shrew (Sorex araneus), except for its length : body length : 65 mm; length of the tail : 40 mm. The total length exceeds the length given in wikipedia : 82 mm. It think the Greater White-toothed Shrew (Crocidura russula) could now be a good candidate, as this specimen lacks red spots on the teeth. The nl.wikipedia gives more information about this species : nl:Huisspitsmuis. If necessary I can upload another photo of the belly and the teeth of this specimen. JoJan (talk) 15:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Sorex should have red teeth. Crocidura russula does seem the more likely candidate; from what I read, Crocidura leucodon (the only other Crocidura in Belgium) would have a clearer separation between the coloration of the upper- and underparts. That goes to show that I shouldn't trust my old "Handbuch der Tiere und Pflanze" from 1963, and that I don't know much about the characters of European shrews. Ucucha15:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, please do upload more pictures of the animal—when someone sets out to write a decent article on the species, it will be very useful to have pictures of things like the teeth. Ucucha15:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know you've played with the clade templates before, and I wonder if you had any suggestions on how to put them inside another table. On the Ring-tailed Lemur article, I would like to put both the taxonomic nomenclature and the cladogram inside box, just as I did the two competing taxonomies for lemurs on the main Lemur article. However, when I do this the cladogram develops borders that I can't seem to get rid of. Here's what it looks like:
When I remove this CSS from the td containing the cladogram in Firebug, the problem disappears. Now, I'm looking for a way to do that in the wikitext. Ucucha08:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! Thanks for the fix! Sorry, I'm haven't learned CSS. Anyway, as for the relationship between Hapalemur and Prolemur, you're welcome to check my sources. Pastorini went into more detail about the relationship, while most of the others didn't sample them, if I remember correctly. If you feel I made an error in my interpretation, feel free to make changes. Either way, the relationship between Lemur, Hapalemur, and Prolemur is unclear at best, and I hope I have made that point in the text of the article. – VisionHolder « talk »15:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have that paper (Pastorini et al., 2002); it indeed shows conflicting relationships within the group. (One tree has (Prolemur(Lemur,Hapalemur)); the other has (Lemur(Prolemur,Hapalemur)).) I would think that that is more accurately represented by a trichotomy; I changed the tree above to show that. Ucucha16:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Myotis alcathoe
On 29 December 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Myotis alcathoe, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that although the bat Myotis alcathoe was only described in 2001, it is now known to range widely across Europe? 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.
All the best in 2011, Ucucha. Remember what I warned you about! Oh, you'll be pleased to know I made my own oliebollen tonight, to the delight of the locals. De groeten! Drmies (talk) 03:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you at least get some Aachener Printen? Mein deutsche Freund hat mir welsche geschickt. Oh, do they still say "Guten Rutsch" or is that profoundly outdated? (And please don't tell me you do pillow talk in German--I will have to indict you for treason if you do.) Drmies (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, yes, and no. The Printen look good, though. Here, they eat Schwarzwalder Kirschtorte and Schwarzwalder Schinken. Did you watch some object fall down in celebration of the new year? I've just learned that that is the proper American thing to do. Ucucha19:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, no. I'm a family man, dude--we were in bed by 10:30. I only woke up at midnight cause idiots started firing their guns. Are you near Freiburg by any chance? I need a photograph of the St. Ottilien Wallfahrtskirche, specifically of the St. Elisabeth painting on the altar of the north wall. Hey, have you seen the de:Hirschsprung (Schwarzwald)? It's really beautiful out there. Bis spätzle, Drmies (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and even closer to the Feldberg. I've seen the Hirschsprung, yes—every time we drive through the Höllental I stretch my neck to see it. I've even read a local novel about an Iroquois guy painting the deer. No visits to Freiburg this time, I'm afraid; I was at the dom in St. Blasien today, though. Ucucha22:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I've made a start on a GA review and made a couple of edits. I'll take another look tomorrow, but I'm off to bed right now. J Milburn (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there Ucucha! I listed a few comments, then passed this article as a good article. I'd appreciate it if you could still look over the review. Nice work! ceranthor18:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I'm doing right now :) (looking for a picture of M. mystacinus, to be precise). Thanks for the review! Ucucha18:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it, I'm afraid. The German text just describes the species, says that he found it on the Ettersberg, and that he knew of another fungus that was similar. The Latin text doesn't seem like a literal translation, and I don't understand it as easily as the German, but I don't see any indication that he didn't accept the species either.
Reading Kasuya and Sato (2009), might it be that it is instead Collybia amanitae (Batsch) Kreisel that is invalid under article 34(1)? Ucucha08:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you're right... Kasuya and Sato (2009) say "Collybia amanitae (Batsch) Kreisel" ... as "ined.", nom. inval. (Art. 34,1(a))."; I was reading too much into it, thinking it applied to Batsch's original publication. I've fixed it the article as best I could, but will have to get some European sources to figure out why Agaricus amanitae isn't considered the basionym. Thanks for helping! Sasata (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:ZooPro has suggested that I request your feedback and/or modifications to this proposal. If you think that it has worth, I would like to post an RfC, notify relevant groups, then announce it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Manual of Style. If this is unlikely to be helpful or achieve anything, please be frank. I won't be offended.
On 5 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Monticolomys, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that although the little brown mouse Monticolomys koopmani was first collected in 1929, it was not formally described until 1996? 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.
Hi Ucucha, thanks for the review and sorry for accidentally undoing your edits when I used reflinks. I just wanted to let you know that I will get round to addressing the problems, but that it might not be until later this weekend or early next week. Thanks again. SmartSE (talk) 10:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On 9 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mikea Forest, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Mikea Forest, one of the largest remaining forest blocks in southwestern Madagascar, is yet to be protected? 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.
On 9 January 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Macrotarsomys petteri, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the range of the rodent Macrotarsomys petteri is believed to have shifted as a result of climatic change? 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.
Regarding the above, on a personal note, I have a dynamic IP and it changes every time my internet connection is disrupted, therefore it is impossible to contact me. As a courtesy, when I do initiate discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (fauna), I will drop you a note here, even though obviously you have no obligation to participate since I am not arguing you but rather the policy, so it will just be as a courtesy. As I am on WP infrequently, it might be a week or so. Rgrds. -64.85.216.158 (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The naming conventions page is on my watchlist, so I'll see it; thanks anyway for the offer. Why don't you just log in? There's no need to tell everyone that you're using Socket Internet in Missouri. Ucucha17:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will never use an account here again, for reasons that many fellow IP-users champion, while non-IP-users fail to appreciate. Besides, with this dynamic IP, the cities vary dramatically and it has never come within 100 miles of listing my actual location, and I don't do anything that would necessitate any fear of retribution anyway. FYI, IP users hate the "create an account" mantra. BTW, you started showing up on mammal articles a little after I burned out and was fading away, so I never really interacted with you except once or twice in passing. Rgrds. -64.85.216.158 (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hope things are well, havnt interacted with you much recently however I thought I would bring you a cookie and see how things are going, Cheers ZooPro13:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tit for tat
Granted, I owe you more than I'll ever be able to pay you back for... However, I was wondering if you could quickly scrutinize my short GAN, Thomcord (grape) since it needs a second opinion. It will be coming to FAC very soon, but I feel that since I have exhausted every source I can find and have had the researcher who created the grape review it, then it should be ready for FAC. In return, I will squeeze in a review of your latest FAC tonight.
...Okay, I lied. I'm going to review your FAC tonight anyway. If you don't have time to review the GAN, then don't sweat it. I just thought I'd ask. ;-) – VisionHolder « talk »13:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I remember you being really helpful when I started writing content in new areas! Also, with all your experience in Featured article you would be an ideal mentor for University students editing Wikipedia for the first time. Would you be interested in helping with the WP:Online_Ambassadors program? It's really a great opportunity to help students become Wikipedia contributers. I hope you apply! Sadads (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the Pennatomys range map, but I just need to decide how to upload it. Your "SVG" map wasn't truly a SVG file. Instead, it was a bitmap file embedded in a SVG file. Normally you can convert bitmaps in Inkscape, but version 0.48 won't do it for me for some reason, so I converted it here. With the proper layers created for the original map, I then created a layer for the mini-map and simply dragged the SVG map of Central America into Inkscape, resized it, created a white background in the corner, drew a small red box where appropriate, and then left the map hanging over the corner (which should cut it off in the browser). Given the import of a new file (which needs attribution), I suspect that I need to upload the SVG range map as a new file rather than uploading it over the existing range map of yours... Your thoughts? – VisionHolder « talk »05:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going to upload the converted copy over your existing range map, and then upload a separate range map that will combine the original and a mini-map. Now I'll be the first to admit that the conversion isn't perfect, although it is pretty close. I played with the settings and couldn't get a perfect conversion. If you could point me to where you obtained the original map (from OpenStreetMap), maybe I can figure out how to get it to properly export as SVG, and therefore restore the the level of detail you had before. If we simply can't get a better SVG copy, I'll revert myself and upload a copy of the new range map that just uses the bitmap in the background. – VisionHolder « talk »05:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! Are you sure about the bitmap thing, though? I don't see any embedding in the source code for the old map. I think you could have just uploaded your new version with the additional map over mine and amended the description to provide attribution, but the current arrangement is also fine. Ucucha12:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure it was a bitmap because I couldn't select individual items in your map, even after highlighting and selecting "Ungroup". If I'm wrong and you can find a way to put them on a true layer, let me know. However, the layer you had in the original file was empty. (When I deleted it, nothing disappeared.) Like I said, just point me to the source and I can try to get a vector graphic. But if you'd prefer the original using the raster graphic, we can easily move the mini-map layer into the first version of the file. – VisionHolder « talk »13:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is because I messed up the layers; I think I fixed that by editing the source code (see the newest version of File:Pennatomys-range.svg). It doesn't especially matter which one you use with the minimap, since there is no noticeable difference in quality between your and my version and yours is 60% smaller. Ucucha13:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In your opinion, does my work on Gibbon Wildlife Sanctuary merit a DYK? When I encountered it, it looked like this. Honestly, I think it merited deletion due to the lack of citations and possible copyright violations. Therefore, I mostly blanked the article here, then spent most of the night re-writing it. Your thoughts? – VisionHolder « talk »08:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've certainly done some great work on that article. However, it'll only meet DYK criteria if you can prove that the existing text was a copyright violation (as opposed to just really bad). I agree that it may well have been one, but can't find the copyvio source in Google. Ucucha14:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This may also cause a problem for the Slow loris article because we deleted a bunch of uncited material and a block of anatomical text that even the experts agreed was probably lifted from an offline source, although we were unable to identify it. However, doesn't {{Unreferenced}} say that "unsourced material may be challenged and removed"? The material was flagged for lack of references since February 2008 and was tagged for its lack of notability since March 2010. I'd think those would be valid grounds for deletion. – VisionHolder « talk »15:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The other problem was that the vast majority of the article was a list, which I don't think counts towards the content of DYK. I've found the proper source citation for these lists, and have written to the editor requesting either an digital copy or at least confirmation that it was a copyright violation. I may move the old content (219 birds and numerous vertebrates) to a new list article given its size, then summarize in the new article. Do you think that might work? – VisionHolder « talk »16:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a list seems a good idea in such a case. We might ultimately want to do the same for some of the Malagasy protected areas. I hope you'll be able to get the source. Ucucha16:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to find similar lists for the Malagasy protected areas! As for the source in question, I came very close to finding it freely available online, but the archive stopped before the year 2000: [1] Oh well... I'll cross my fingers for an email reply. Otherwise I'll just work off the citation and the text I deleted. – VisionHolder « talk »17:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ucucha, do you think you could explain in this article why it has a ? before the name? I don't recall seeing it before and don't know what it means. I was also thinking that some readers of DYK might think it was vandalism or a mistake without it being mentioned somewhere. Thanks for introducing me to the biodiversity heritage library btw, it's a great source of information. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I assumed that was why but think it would be good to explicitly state that because of the ambiguity it has a ? before it's name. SmartSE (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
you rv my redirect quit quickly citing that the species has "several common names" and that neither are really common. To be fair, 2 hardly counts as several, and "common" is merely semantics (and you know that) - the species itself isn't exactly common so it's kind of a silly thing to point out. the encyclopedia is written for laypeople, and as such we actually prefer common names when we can reasonably agree on them. i appreciate the hard work you've done for wikipedia, and for the rodent wikiproject - you do a lot of good work and i'm impressed. but please don't take this the wrong way, and as the main contributor to the article i understand your attachment to the article. but no one is going to argue that "Emmons' Oryzomys" is a layperson's name. take it up with a parent project like WP:MAMMAL or WP:TOL. I'll use Cougar as an example of a species that could actually argue several common names, and i'm just shocked that your reviewer let it pass FA under this name. --ΖαππερΝαππερBabelAlexandria22:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See [2] for prior consensus, and User:Ucucha/Titles for some background. We have many featured articles under the scientific name where so-called common names exist (pretty much all the plants and fungi, for example).
There is a difference between "common name" as used in taxonomy (that is, a name in the vernacular) and as used in Wikipedia policy (that is, a name that is in common use). "Emmons's Rice Rat" is the former, but not the latter. Ucucha23:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
it would have been a little more helpful to link to those in your reversion, but it seems you've at least made a good-faith attempt at garnering consensus. while i'm not interested in arguing about it (i.e. i'm not going to try and move them back) i'd like to note that there should be some better way than google numbers to decide vernacular vs. scientific, and i view the added "confusion" as a chance to instruct. happy editing! --ΖαππερΝαππερBabelAlexandria16:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a better suggestion than Google Books/Scholar (not just raw Google!) numbers, I'd love to hear it; we have to work with what we have, and using easily accessible compilations of largely reliable sources seems as good a method as any.
I prefer to instruct on the actual animals, instead of names that someone made up. In any case, placing the article under the scientific name does not prevent us from discussing the common names, and in fact I always list all common names I can find in articles I write. Ucucha19:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
