User talk:FunkMonk/Archive 16

Bluebuck

I have gone through the article. The trouble here is that the sources cited are mainly offline (some are even in non-English languages), and I depend basically on online ones. Nevertheless I have accessed a many other sources and will soon work with them, but I can't check these offline sources. What is the plan now? Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 04:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, anything that could be gotten through the source request?[1] Journal articles can usually be obtained there... Books might be harder... FunkMonk (talk) 04:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Amazingly, I have just accessed many journal articles with bluebuck accounts online, and they might help a lot. But the article seems full of books, ancient or in foreign languages. Anything you can do? Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 04:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Archive.org and Biodiversity Library often have rare old, non-English books... So we can probably track it down if there's something we really need. But I think there must be recent, English sources that summarise it all? FunkMonk (talk) 04:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

It is really easier to write articles on living mammals as at least a few books will have accounts on them. But from all I could find books mention just the folklore involving bluebuck, but I will try to dig deeper. I will come a week later to add all the info I have gathered... Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 04:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there nothing like for example "Walker's Mammals of the World", which we used on quagga? FunkMonk (talk) 04:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for suggesting that, will check... any other names you can recall? BTW I found a whole lot of phylogenetic info... we have not decided which of us will work on what and when, so I am not sure if I should touch Taxonomy... can we fix it now? Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 04:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Seems the quagga source "The Mammals of the Southern African Subregion" could be handy too. I think both were found through Google Books. I can take taxonomy, because that is probably where we'll have to use old, outdated sources the most (and I have quite some experience with that). Anything you really want to work on? FunkMonk (talk) 04:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

LittleJerry found many of those sources for quagga, perhaps he has suggestions? FunkMonk (talk) 04:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

FunkMonk Then you take this [[2]]. I will try to set the rest of the article straight, no idea how well I will be able to do that. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 04:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Cool! Maybe we should make a list of journal articles we don't have access to, and request them all at once (what I usually do before writing an article). FunkMonk (talk) 04:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I think I have accessed most of them, yet there are three or four more to find. I will work on this next week. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 06:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey pal, have been working on the characteristics part for a while. I think we should decide what to do about the unsourced claims that abound in the article, delete them meanwhile? There are some book sources inaccessible for me at the moment, which I am keeping as they were or rearranging a bit after rewrite. And I was wondering if you know from which book this [3] came from, it would be helpful to me... This is no April Fool hoax ;) Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 15:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Cool, I was thinking of finding a better version of that image anyway... As for unsourced claims I usually wait until I've checked all available sources before I delete them... FunkMonk (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Very well, will take me a little more time to finish my work on description... I am retaining the unsourced claims. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 16:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Started the work, have a few more sources to look into... Check it out. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 17:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I think most of the unsourced info in this section comes from the 1967 Erna Mohrs book Der Blaubock Hippotragus leucophaeus (Pallas, 1766). I wonder if we could access it... Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 17:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

If it is on Google Books or some such, we should be able to get it, and I can use my rusty German to check, hehe... Also, I think we can rename all the sections to more standardised names. FunkMonk (talk) 06:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Google Translate is my only hope... I could understand Kolbe's account only from there! Yeah, we need to fix those sections, a lot of mess there... Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 06:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey, we have a big haul here! [4] And can you tell me how we are gonna work in the sections? The taxonomy and the description look similar to me as it is now... Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 08:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems to be the source of all those antelope images we couldn't find... I think what is now in the taxonomy section is too detailed, but I'll redistribute the text if anything is usable... FunkMonk (talk) 08:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, I am shifting some of the details definitely on description to the other section. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 08:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• Do you have the DNA paper[5], Sainsf? I was thinking of summarising it in the article soon... FunkMonk (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I downloaded it from Springer, don't know why the link doesn't work now... I have the full PDF, I can email you that. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 11:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll send you a mail so you can send it there... FunkMonk (talk) 11:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 11:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Got it! FunkMonk (talk) 11:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

This page has a nice list of further sources at the bottom:[6] Also, the further reading section of our bluebuck article is a bit weird, it lists sources that are already used as references... So they should be removed from further reading. FunkMonk (talk) 03:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, all those sources are either used or to be used in the article, will try to work more on my part of the job today. I will fix the Further reading section, keeping only that stuff we have not used for sources. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 04:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

No rush, I'll be working a bit sporadically as well the coming weeks... Much more to be added from the DNA paper too. Interesting fact not mentioned in our article, this was apparently the first African mammal to go extinct in historic times... FunkMonk (talk) 04:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Gonna be an awesome DYK! I am a bit speedy with my work, will be careful though ... there shouldn't be any edit conflicts as we have our territories defined. I guess you shouldn't leave loose strands like incomplete citations, keep the article reader-ready all the time. :) Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 04:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that citation thing is a new development, though, you used to be able to put in that template and click on "expand citations" in the toolbox, and it would automatically be filled out... But it seems that function has just been temporarily removed (due to some glitch)... So will have to find a way around, because I really hate filling citation templates manually... Main reason why I haven't updated the dodo article yet with the new information... FunkMonk (talk) 04:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hehe, I work with the cite templates all the time, but only due to the autofill option ;) ... I guess I can fix the citations for you. Just found another source that says it was the "the first of the great African game animals to be exterminated by man", will add it once you are done. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 04:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, something still works, another kind of autofill? Maybe I've overlooked something... By the way, I can take care of the extinction stuff, no worries.. Seems we also need a synonym list... FunkMonk (talk) 04:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Have you ever tried out the "Cite" options just above the editing area? Where they have the "Advanced" options and all? If you click cite you can choose any one of the cite templates and they have that magical autofill option... saves a lot of trouble especially if you feed just the doi/pmid. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 04:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

If this works, then OMG! What have I been doing all these years? FunkMonk (talk) 04:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

It works, take my word of it. And do your services to the dodo! ;) Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 04:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

It works... Damn, all the time I've formerly wasted on filling templates and waiting for citationbot... Will take a while to sink in... Thanks for showing that, will be much less painful to add citations from now on! There must be some kind of technical genius barnstar I can give you... FunkMonk (talk) 05:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar, it is my favorite color! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 05:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Some more taxonomic stuff here. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 05:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Another update; added two synonyms. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 08:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

cool! The subspecies trinomial is also technically a synonym, but not sure how to credit that... FunkMonk (talk) 08:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

From next week, I should have more time to focus on the buck... And added some sources to the dodo page, your suggestion works like a charm! Much less mentally painful... FunkMonk (talk) 09:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Recovered from the "harassed by the CitationBot for ages" shock yet? ;) BTW it works for JSTOR ids as well, just put 10.2307/<jstorid> in the doi and have it autofilled, and once you have the citation in the text format change "doi=10.2307/<jstorid>" to "jstor=<jstorid>". Fine with me, I will see what I can do for Saola... a lot of vandalism there since the last few days. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 09:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I actually discovered you can just put the jstor url into the url field, then click the search icon, and it fills out without any further tricks! FunkMonk (talk) 09:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah but the url box leads to bizarre entries at times, so doi is fine for me... Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 09:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

A whole new world for me, hehe... Damn you, Citationbot! FunkMonk (talk) 09:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Congrats for Spotted green pigeon, funny that Hartebeest should be promoted two minutes earlier! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 15:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Waaah! Just added Lesser Antillean macaw (three years already since you passed it?!)... You have anything ready? FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Was thinking of Dromedary, but it will take a day or two to gloss it. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 16:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Nice! I looked after this weird organ in the article[7], got a photo of it? I think it could be a nice addition, most people don't know about it. Also, seems its function could be mentioned under reproduction, rather than description? FunkMonk (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the palate, will search for that. Good idea, I will see what to do; I think more expansion may be on the way. Months since I took care of the article, will have to go over it in the next few days so that the FACs are short as yours, and not overladen with comments as mine! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 16:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Hehe, short reviews are a luxury, ever tried something like this?[8] FunkMonk (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah, that was naive Funkynusayri, not the mature FunkMonk! Wondered how on earth you could be a troll, so I scanned your first talk archive and your ancestry stunned me... Don't let me add a long review at your new FAC, and I won't let you write epics on mine :D ! Let us see who is worse... Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 16:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I was pretty young back then... Hehe, I only started feeling responsibility here once I actually started to write articles! Only happened because I broke up with my girlfriend one summer, and had nothing to do for the rest of it. But then I had just read a book about the dodo... FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

You can imagine how young I was if I am still a teenager after six years here... hehe, seems it is just us young folks who keep the world here going! Yeah, with articles I felt I am really into something serious, it has shaped me IRL. And thanks to your girlfriend, and that book, that we have you here! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 17:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Not to butt in, but this is all quite humorous. Who needs reality TV when you've got your own wiki soap opera not that a new teen like me would be into soap operas. BTW, just call me if you need any reviews, FAC or GAN. IJReid ^discuss 03:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@IJReid: Hehe, who says you can't make friends here? Look, we have made four frightful curves in just one section. This is what happens when we collaborate! ;) BTW I have a lot of GANs waiting. Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 03:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Sainsf Blue duiker, is being reviewed, just wanted to beat that dumb GA bot for once. IJReid ^discuss 04:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Cool, you did beat the guy! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 04:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Heheh, I've probably written more about my real-life self in this thread than ever before on Wikipedia... Not a bad idea to have a friendly gang with different skills up and running (animal A-Team?) when many of the Wiki Projects are kind of desolated... I remember some members of other Wiki projects almost competing and obstructing the work of each other at reviews and such... FunkMonk (talk) 06:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Right, we need to make it lively! And hey, I was thinking of sending Springbok to FAC... Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 06:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

If it's closer to the mark than dromedary, I say do it! FunkMonk (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I will polish both; I guess I am allowed to send in both as I have no others in the queue? Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 06:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Not for FAC, only if one of them is a collaboration! That's why I waited with nominating the macaw right after the pigeon had passed. So you have to make a choice between two of your children... FunkMonk (talk) 07:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, that's sad. I think your pupil Springbok is better for now... I think we will soon make a fifth curve, I am tired of all those colons! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 07:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks good with the nom! I think I can finally move into gear on the bluebuck, will focus on taxonomy and extinction... But the GA cup seems a lost cause. And darnit, just found a free photo that shows the Stockholm specimen... Or well, its feet in the background:[9] FunkMonk (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Got easy with your work? My part of the article still needs to be polished, such a lot of unsourced claims! Well, frankly, the pic would be of use if we focus just on the hooves, crop it or something; no, it would still look weird... Hey, did you check this [10] out at the GA Cup? You might still stick around if there is some change in the pools! Sainsf <^>_{Feel at home} 02:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I think the GA cup race is over for me... I kind of had to neglect FA reviews and such, which are in a sense more urgent, because they can be archived if there are less than three supports... And I still have several GA reivews with little to no responses! FunkMonk (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scaphognathus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ornithocephalus. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Revert at Pteraspis

I reverted your edit at Pteraspis because P. dunensis has been moved to Rhinopteraspis for several years now. We need to get that article started, too.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw your message on Commons. All the images there should have proper names in the descriptions at least, and new categories. You reverted me adding the species name to the restoration, though, which also seems to show it is maybe another genus... FunkMonk (talk) 16:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Pteraspis stensioi was moved to Larnovaspis, too, as per Blieck 1984, "Les Heterostraces Pteraspidiformes, Systematique, Phylogenie, Biostraigraphie, Biogeographie, Cahiers de Paleontologie, section vertebres"--Mr Fink (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. How about the species depicted in the other Commons category photos?[11] FunkMonk (talk) 08:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Created Rhinopteraspis here, and made a Commons category. Seems we have a few more to go... FunkMonk (talk) 12:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Round 3

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 3 Hello, GA Cup competitors! Thursday saw the end of Round 2. Sainsf once again took out Round 2 with an amazing score of 996 (a higher score then he received in Round 1!). In second place, MPJ-DK earned an astounding 541 points, and in third place, Carbrera received 419 points. In Round 2, 142 reviews were completed! At the beginning of April, there were 486 outstanding nominations in the GAN queue; by the end of Round 1, there were 384. Another demonstrable way in which this competition has made a difference is in the length of time articles languish in the queue. At the beginning of this GA Cup, the longest wait was over 9 months [12]; at the end of Round 2, the longest wait had decreased significantly, to a little over 5 months.[13] It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 3 so we can keep lowering the backlog as much as possible. To qualify for the third round, contestants had to earn the two highest scores in each of the four pools in Round 2; plus, one wildcard. We had an unusual occurrence happen in Round 2: because only one contestant submitted reviews in one pool, we selected the contestant with the next highest score to move forward to Round 3. (There will be a rule change for future competitions in case something like this happens again.) For Round 3, users were placed in 3 random pools of 3. To qualify for the Final of the 3rd Annual GA Cup, the top user in each pool will progress, and there will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 4th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 3 will start on May 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on May 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here. Good luck and have fun! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

GA Cup-Round 3 Clarification

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 3 Hello, GA Cup competitors! It has been brought to our attention that we made a mistake in the last newsletter. In the last newsletter, we said that the "4th place" overall would make the Final along with the top user from each pool. However, the users who will advance will be the top user from each pool along with "4th and 5th place" overall. We apologize for any inconvenience or confusion that we caused. Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Recent change to Ankylosaurus

Hi FunkMonk,

You reverted my change to the Ankylosaurus article, saying "How about looking at the source at the end of the paragraph?" I had looked at both sources at the end of the paragraph before making my edit, but I was unable to look at the full papers since they are not available to view for free. As I said in my edit's description, I couldn't find a source for the part I removed. It also wasn't clear what info in the paragraph came from which source as there was two sources listed right at the end of the paragraph. Additionally, neither source was directly after the part I removed.

I don't know which source the info came from, and which ankylosaurids have been said to have variable tail clubs (as far as I'm aware tail club shape isn't known to be variable within a species). If the info is from the 2004 source and it refers to Euoplocephalus, that would be from before Dyoplosaurus and Anodontosaurus were found to not be synonyms of Euoplocephalus, and these three ankylosaurids have differently shaped tail clubs.

2A02:C7D:B92E:EA00:E6CE:8FFF:FE0A:2EA4 (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

It is Carpenter 2004. I'll have a look at what he exactly says later. FunkMonk (talk) 07:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

The relevant passage is "Given the great variety in knob shape in Euoplocephalus (Coombs 1995), there is no reason to assume that the club is typical for Ankylosaurus." So you are right. But in general, don't remove text if you don't know what the source actually states, such issues can be brought up at the talk page when there is ambiguity. FunkMonk (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

NWOBHM again

Hello there. The article is still sitting on the fence between "promote" and "not promote" at [Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New Wave of British Heavy Metal/archive1], because some positions in the discussion about the term "movement" applied to the NWOBHM need to be clarified. You participated in that discussion and I would really appreciate if you could leave your input on the matter and/or any other comment about the article. Lewismaster (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, it has 7 supports, though. That should be enough for a pass, even if there was one oppose. FunkMonk (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar! Abyssal (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, seems you didn't have that one already either! FunkMonk (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Stegoceras

I'm been thinking about working on Stegoceras somewhere down the line but apparently it may not be a monotypic genus. LittleJerry (talk) 21:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I think that's ok, certainly easier than the situation with Pachycephalosaurus. Also seems there is disagreement on whether the second species does belong in the genus or not, but little seems to be known about it, so probably won't change much for the text if it is eventually split off (most studies are about the type species, many are CC licensed). Smilodon also has more than one species, and that turned out pretty well... FunkMonk (talk) 11:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Oops, I meant monophyletic. LittleJerry (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, no problem there either, it will not mean much once the species is split into another genus... The Stegoceras article will still have to mention that the species was once classified in the genus. FunkMonk (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'll be busy in the next couple weeks but we can meetup. Good luck on your current FAC. LittleJerry (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, I'm also very busy at the moment, probably won't have much time for writing before next month (and I'll also collaborate on bluebuck)... But you can of course start without me, seems there is plenty of stuff to write about its biology (head-butting). We could need a restoration and a size comparison, though, might make that in the meantime... FunkMonk (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you up for starting sometime in June? LittleJerry (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Hopefully I'll be unemployed most of that month, so there should be more time for writing then, haha... FunkMonk (talk) 09:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 2, 2016

Hi FunkMonk. A summary of a Featured Article you nominated will appear on the Main Page soon; how does it look? - Dank (push to talk) 15:50, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, saw it, blurb looks good, but I made some tweaks to the article. FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. - Dank (push to talk) 15:57, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Splendid work, of course you won't give up before you reach FA! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 04:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Great article!--MWAK (talk) 06:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Precious again, your Red rail which "contains most of what will ever be known about the bird, and all definite contemporary illustrations"!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hilal Khashan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Al-Akhbar. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Fauna Barnstar
		To FunkMonk, for writing the article "Red rail". Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I saw the article as "today's featured article" on the main page. It is very good and I enjoyed reading it. (I don't know why it has taken so long to reach "tfa".) Best wishes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I only nominate for TFA myself when there's a relevant date, so the rest of the FAs I've written mainly end up there as random "filler". FunkMonk (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Glad to see you're staying on top of the unconstructive edits. I've had some pretty negative experiences with the MP lately, but I fear that saying I'd rather my stuff didn't appear would turn me into one of those fabled "grumpy old Wikipedians"... Great topic and article, so I'm not surprised it was scheduled. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah, one of the good things about getting an article featured on the main page is that it gets more watchers, and therefore more people to combat vandalism... But of course, once it hits the front page, even more vandals are attracted, so it's a double-edged sword... Then again, after it is off the front page, the vandals diminish in numbers, but the watcher stay... FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Finals

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 3 Hello, GA Cup competitors! Tuesday saw the end of Round 3. Sainsf, for the third time, won with a sizable 487 points and a shocking 29 articles reviewed. In second, MPJ-DK had 168 points and 7 reviewed articles. In second place, MPJ-DK earned 168 points with just 7 articles, and in third place, Carbrera received 137 points with just 9 articles. Our two wildcard slots went to J Milburn with 122 points and Sturmvogel 66 with 101 points. In Round 3, 65 reviews were completed! At the beginning of the GA Cup, there were 595 outstanding nominations in the GAN queue; by the end of Round 3, there were 394. Another demonstrable way in which this competition has made a difference is in the length of time articles languish in the queue. At the beginning of the GA Cup, the longest wait was over 9 months [14]; at the end of Round 3, the longest wait had decreased significantly, to a little over 5 months [15]—nothing before 2016. It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in the Finals for the GA Cup so that are successes continue. To qualify for the Finals, contestants had to earn the highest scores in each of the three pools in Round 3; plus, as well as the top 2 of all remaining users in all of the pools. For the Finals, users were placed in one pool of the remaining five users. To win the GA Cup, you must have the most points. The Finals started on June 1 at 0:00:01 UTC' and end on June 30 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about the Finals and the pools can be found here. A clarification: in order for the points to count, you must mark your reviews as completed; it's not up to the judges to ensure that all reviews are completed by the end of a round. We wish all the contestants the best of luck! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Ratings

Dropped by to remind you that when you promote an article for GA you should also update its WikiProject ratings... I wondered if you forget to do that in every article of mine you review ;) Sainsf (talk · contribs) 12:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Haha, I've never done it do any article~, not even my own... Didn't know it was a requirement? FunkMonk (talk) 12:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I wonder how useful those assessment pages on WikiProjects are, but I do my best to keep them in sync with the present day! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 12:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Will try to remember, hehe... It took me quite a while to realise I had to add articles to the various GA article lists as well... Should all be done automatically, I think... FunkMonk (talk) 12:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Like Sainsf (talk · contribs) 12:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Lynx issiodorensis

Hi, I am taking a break from bovids and trying felids instead... I am thinking of making Lynx a good topic, and it seems to have an extinct member too. Like to collab on that? You seem to have some experience from Smilodon... Sainsf (talk · contribs) 08:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I might be able to contribute with something about its evolution? FunkMonk (talk) 10:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

That's what no one can beat you at. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 10:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

This is going to take months actually, as I am gonna get really busy in real life. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 14:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, you're underestimating your speed, hehe! We can at least get bluebuck through the hoops in the meantime... FunkMonk (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I, I can't seem to keep away and this leads to a dangerous number of GAs! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 15:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Semitic people

That page is a trainwreck of people (like Cathry) demanding it be instantiated as a "valid racial group". Shouldn't we perhaps make it redirect to Racialism? I'm really unclear about "Semitic-speaking peoples" because what kind of grouping is that, anyway? Is that a coherent page? What would it say? I've been debate this on that page forever and all I can come up with is "they speak Semitic languages". Ogress 02:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

People (like Cathry) demanding liars to stop lying here and/or study the difference between ethnic and racial groups. Answer is not necessary. Cathry (talk) 04:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

People (like Cathry) shouldn't call people "liars". Ogress 06:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I've made a comment there. As for racialism, I think that would be a bit too broad a concept for such a redirect... Even anti-Semitism would be closer to the subject, I'd say. FunkMonk (talk) 02:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The real issue is: if Semitic people goes to antisemitism, where do Japhetites and Hamites go? Honestly I just want "Semitic people" to stop being used on pages because it's racist. Ogress 02:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that it can have two meanings, one of which is valid... Semitic people can mean peoples who simply speak Semitic languages... Nothing racist in that. It is when it is used to refer to some kind of "pan-ethnicity" that the trouble begins... Exactly like with Indo-European peoples... FunkMonk (talk) 02:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

What, exactly, would be in an article about Semitic-speaking peoples? "They speak Semitic languages"? I mean seriously - what would be on it? Other wikilinks just end up going nowhere. "Semitic people" should also go nowhere and be removed. There's no coherency there. Ogress 03:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, the hypothetical article would just be an overview article, it isn't really a proper subject in itself... But as I stated elsewhere, I think it should simply be a redirect. FunkMonk (talk) 03:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Bluebuck

Interesting article! I have just one question:

In the second paragraph in the lead you mention the southwestern Cape. I think "Cape" should be linked, but I wasn't sure if this was the Cape of Good Hope or the former province Cape Province.  – Corinne (talk) 03:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the copy-edit! I think Cape Province would be the most appropriate, but perhaps Sainsf has other ideas? FunkMonk (talk) 03:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

alewites - source

Their leader Ali Yenal declares here listen: They are Tasawwufi Islamic Tariqa212.253.113.57 (talk) 02:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

So you're saying some guy in Turkey speaks for a religious group that mainly exists in Syria? Also, Youtube is not a valid source. Religious texts and commentary are needed for this. FunkMonk (talk) 12:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Stegoceras

I found this paper on pachycephalosaurids with much focus on Stegoceras. LittleJerry (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Nice, seems there is a huge amount of literature on this guy, I'm also trying to get some of the older papers... Seems this one is also important, but is a minefield of disused names: http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/handle/2246/387 Pachycephalosaurs had similar teeth to troodontids, so they were lumped together until more complete troodont reamins were found... FunkMonk (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The 1987 paper you are looking for is the same one I posted. LittleJerry (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I think we'll have to write this article in Canadian English, as most of the fossils are found there. LittleJerry (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

That basically means British English, or what? I don't think the rules are so strict when it comes to prehistoric animals, no one is likely to encounter them today... But I always prefer BE in any case... Much of the literature seems to have been written by Americans though. FunkMonk (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Canadian English is a mixture of US and UK English. LittleJerry (talk) 00:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Based on the journal name "Contributions to Canadian Palaeontology", it at least seems to be predominantly UK when it comes to sciency stuff... FunkMonk (talk) 00:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm a canadian, so I'll chime in on this. Canadian is basically British spellings, American cars/mechanical words, and its own wonky pronunciations. Afaik, the only thing that would be mentioned in the article different from US and UK would be spelling (palaeontology, colour, recognized, travelled). IJReid ^discuss 00:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Heheh, that's convenient! Maybe you should have a look through once we're done... If you want to write some of it, I think you're welcome too... Though that'll drastically reduce the amount of fit reviewers, though... FunkMonk (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

You can use this script to change it all to Canadian English - User:Ohconfucius/script/EngvarB.js. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 01:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Wow, with all those scripts, soon they won't~need editors... FunkMonk (talk) 11:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• LittleJerry, something weird seems to be going on with the Sues/Galton 1983 paper... Everywhere I try to find it, I get their 1987 paper instead? Do you have both? The file you sent me even seem to have one title on the first page and another on the second?! But seems to only be the 1987 paper. Probably explains my earlier confusion as well... FunkMonk (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I only have the 1987 paper. I did not know of a 1983 paper. LittleJerry (talk) 03:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

It is citation 24 in the article (seems to be the description of Ornatholus)... Seems I'll request it then! FunkMonk (talk) 03:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Still waiting for the one article. In the meantime I'll do paleoecology later today or tommorrow. LittleJerry (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'd like that 1923 paper too, but I think I can manage even if it isn't found... Seems the rest of the history section will mainly be about species referred to Stegoceras, but then moved to other genera later, quite a few of those... FunkMonk (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

And if you're waiting for sources, in the meantime, I think source 26, 27, and 29 have much more info to summarise, I just added very few words to get the sources in the article... FunkMonk (talk) 19:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I got the file from the author himself. I stent a file to you. It seems the information on jaw movement is not outdated. LittleJerry (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I should be able to do more work by the middle of this week. FunkMonk (talk) 22:49, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems that 1924 paper has the only PD pictures of the skeleton we're likely to get... A bit boring with an article only full of skulls... Though of course, that's what its known for. FunkMonk (talk) 03:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

On a different note, I have written many extremely complicated taxonomic histories before (including the mess that is Paraceratherium), but I think Stegoceras takes the cake so far... Yikes... FunkMonk (talk) 05:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 9, 2016

Hi FunkMonk. It's going to be hard to get this one down to 1075–1175 characters because it all hangs together. Would you like to take a shot at it? (I use http://www.javascriptkit.com/script/script2/charcount.shtml). - Dank (push to talk) 21:27, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, also thought it looked long, will see what I can do... FunkMonk (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Down to 1733 so far. - Dank (push to talk) 01:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

1429. Great work ... I'm happy to take it the rest of the way, or you can. - Dank (push to talk) 11:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Cool, yeah, I've mainly removed entire sentences I thought were unimportant, but the rest could maybe be shortened by rewriting it to be less wordy... FunkMonk (talk) 15:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bluebuck

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bluebuck you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Wrap Up

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Final/Wrap-Up Hello to our truly awesome GA Cup competitors! Thursday, June 30 saw the end of the 2016 GA Cup. It was a huge success. In the final, our five competitors reviewed an astonishing 207 articles, the most in any GA Cup final thus far. We continue to reach our goals and make a substantial impact in how quickly articles are reviewed for GA status. On March 1, the start of this competition, the article longest in the queue had languished there since June 26, 2015 [16]; in the July 1, 2016 list, the average wait length is just four months [17]. It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for their enthusiasm, and for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success. Remember that most articles can't even be considered for FA status unless it's been passed to GA first, so our efforts have created hundreds of potentials FAs. That is, as they say, a big deal. The final this time represented a real horse race between our 1st and 2nd place winners. First-time competitor (who had won all previous rounds) Sainsf earned an impressive 1456 points with 91 articles reviewed during the final. Close behind, in second place was Carbrera, also a first-time competitor, reviewed the most articles (94). Their enthusiasm was a treat to witness. Congrats to you both! The competition went relatively smoothly, with very little drama this time. We had to clarify one rule: in order for the points to count, you must mark your reviews as completed; it's not up to the judges to ensure that all reviews are completed by the end of a round. We were strict about adhering to this clarification, especially at the end of the final. We intend on stressing it in the stated rules for our next competition, which will be announced soon, so watch out for it. We also intend on applying for a grant through Wikimedia to include gift certificates for our winners, to further incentivize the GA Cup. MrWooHoo should receive special recognition for acting as our main judge, and for stepping in for the rest of the judges when real-life busyness took over. He reviewed the majority of the submissions during our final round. Thanks for your hard work, and for the hard work of all our judges. We look forward to the next competition. Again, thanks to all our competitors, and congrats to our winners. Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

AH

Hi, Funkmonk! Are you aware that your picture of Segnosaurus is now being used in a sticker album of collectible dinosaur images, issued by the largest Dutch supermarket chain, Albert Heijn? See: http://www.ah.nl/dino

It's number 056, of the Dangerous Dinos.

Greetings, --MWAK (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Kudos Funk! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 07:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Hahah, weird! No, but I see some of NobuTamura's images there as well! Wasn't contacted about it, but I think such things are fun anyway... FunkMonk (talk) 08:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bluebuck

The article Bluebuck you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bluebuck for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

For our first awesome collaboration

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		For finally succeeding in getting me to write a GA on an extinct animal! It was such a lot of fun to work with you, I'm amazed I could write it well. But you were the one behind all this! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 13:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

By the way if you have no problem I'm going ahead to nominate this for DYK. The hook will be that it was the first large African mammal to become extinct. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 13:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and go ahead with the DYK! To be fair, you did most of the work... Seems I'll give you the same barnstar after our second collaboration... Or hey, if we get this to FAC! FunkMonk (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it was truly a team effort. well done. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I took care of the DYK nomination. Add proposed alt hooks if you like. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

LOL I was doing that at the very same moment. Never mind added an ALT1. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 14:13, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks good! My main worry about the article is that I still can't find high res versions of the two images under distribution... But that of course won't affect anything. FunkMonk (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Bluebuck has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, FunkMonk. Bluebuck, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Stegoceras appreciation

		The Epic Barnstar
		For all your excellent work on the frustrating and confusing history of dinosaur discovery IJReid discuss 17:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

You asked for one on Stegoceras, and its seems like you should get it! IJReid ^discuss 17:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Aww, thanks! And whew, not even near finished yet... I was about to ask you to fix the cladogram, as it doesn't actually look like that in the (freely accessible) source... Have time? FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stegoceras, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Enamel. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

TFAR

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Passenger pigeon --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, am I eligible to vote? FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stegoceras, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Isometric. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Stegoceras

I expanded on the summaries of the articles you suggested expect the ontogeny one. I don't know how to expand much on that. LittleJerry (talk) 18:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

It's ok, I'll see if I can expand all the sections when I'm done with description... I think there's more to be said about the head-butting debate, seems it has been somewhat controversial since the 70s or 80s... FunkMonk (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I can't find it stated in the sources that the majority of Stegoceras fossils are found in the DInosaur Park Formation, seems to be a leftover form before we started work? Will take a while yet to finish the rest of the text, what I'm adding may seem a bit too detailed, but that level has been accepted at FAC hitherto, and you have to get down to the nitty gritty anatomical details when nothing else than bones are known, I think... I need to add info about the limbs and pelvis, then description should be done, and I'll continue to the head-butting and ontogeny... FunkMonk (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Sorry I haven't been active lately, I've been studying for a test but I should be done after Saturday. LittleJerry (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

No problem, LittleJerry. I'm very close to being done, but I just noticed that the dome of Stegoceras was proposed by some writers in the 90s to have functioned as a "heat-exchange organ"... I have none of the relevant sources (one is called "Stegoceras not a head-butter"!), and the theory only seems to be mentioned in Goodwin 2004, so I'll have to try to summarise this view from the info there for the sake of comprehensiveness... Always some new weirdness popping up about this dinosaur... FunkMonk (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Can't find more to add, LittleJerry, so I went ahead and nominated it... Will probably take some time before we get a review, so I'll probably shorten some of the text a bit in the meantime, perhaps too much detail in places... FunkMonk (talk) 00:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay. LittleJerry (talk) 00:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Bluebuck

On 26 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bluebuck, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the bluebuck (pictured) was the first large African mammal historically recorded to have become extinct? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bluebuck. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Bluebuck), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Stegoceras

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Stegoceras you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of IJReid -- IJReid (talk) 02:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dodo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fenestra. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Giganotosaurus, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Sulcus and Ilium. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Stegoceras

Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Stegoceras has been completed. As you will see, there was very little that needed doing.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Saw your note about the possibility of something being "too technical". I did add a couple of explanatory defining words and a few links to WP articles to aid the reader. The article had the level of technicality I would expect is appropriate. TfT

Thanks a lot, looks very good! Also, I forgot to mention we tried to keep it in Canadian English. FunkMonk (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I've added a "Use Canadian English" tag for future editors to see. Twofingered Typist (talk) 11:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 11:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)