User talk:FunkMonk/Archive 22
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
WikiProject Tree of Life Newsletter
- April 2019—Issue 001
- Tree of Life
- Welcome to the inaugural issue of the Tree of Life newsletter!
|
|
|
|
- WikiCup heating up
Tree of Life editors are making a respectable showing in this year's WikiCup, with three regular editors advancing to the third round. Overall winner from 2016, Casliber, topped the scoreboard in points for round 2, getting a nice bonus for bringing Black mamba to FA. Enwebb continues to favor things remotely related to bats, bringing Stellaluna to GA. Plants editor Guettarda also advanced to round 3 with several plant-related DYKs.
- Wikipedia page views track animal migrations, flowers blooming
A March 2019 paper in PLOS Biology found that Wikipedia page views vary seasonally for species. With a dataset of 31,751 articles about species, the authors found that roughly a quarter of all articles had significant seasonal variations in page views on at least one language version of Wikipedia. They examined 245 language versions. Page views also peaked with cultural events, such as views of the Great white shark article during Shark Week or Turkey during Thanksgiving.
- Did you know ... that Tree of Life editors bring content to the front page nearly every day?
* ... that Dippy is the most famous dinosaur skeleton in the world? (1 April)
|
You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
T-Rex
Wouldn't Brochu (2003) have more information on post-cranial anatomy? LittleJerry (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 13
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Huia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Canterbury Museum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
TFA
This is to let you know that Gallimimus has been scheduled as today's featured article for June 16, 2019 and also Echo parakeet for June 20. Please check the articles need no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 16, 2019 or at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 20, 2019 as the case may be.—Wehwalt (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Having some discussions around Category:Taxa by if you'd like to participate...…Pvmoutside (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Spinophorosaurus
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Spinophorosaurus 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 Enwebb -- Enwebb (talk) 00:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Spinophorosaurus
The article Spinophorosaurus you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Spinophorosaurus 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 Enwebb -- Enwebb (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
species redirect
I'll assume you were guessing when you created redirect, for whatever reason you did that, it has made a complication as I am unpicking my own error in creating the genus article using an outdated source. If you were and are using a source when editing, best to note that as you go. cygnis insignis 14:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- What exactly is the complication? As for why I created a redirect, as stated elsewhere, prehistoric species stubs are discouraged. FunkMonk (talk) 20:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- I had noticed your discouragement, and that notabiluty guideline never emerged, leaving it up to individual discretion, which I am not happy about. The answer is at Blinasaurus, if I have made that clear enough, but still working to align species to the current combinations in different genera. cygnis insignis 20:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Editor spotlight?
Hi FunkMonk, can I ask you some question for the Tree of Life Newsletter? I notice you've been really active lately, working on two articles that are now FAC. Let me know if that would at all interest you. If not, no hard feelings whatsoever. Thanks, Enwebb (talk) 01:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- Could be fun, though I'm not nearly as active as I used to be... FunkMonk (talk) 01:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe it could be a joint interview with Jens Lallensack, we are currently trying to figure out how start wider interest in writing palaeontology related articles. FunkMonk (talk) 01:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- Sure, would be interesting! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks! I came up with some questions here. Enwebb (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- Looks good! I'll write something soon. Just underneath the questions? FunkMonk (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah that's fine, then I'll add your answers into the draft newsletter I'm working on. I will maybe rearrange the questions/answers but I won't change your words without asking first. Enwebb (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Looks good! I'll write something soon. Just underneath the questions? FunkMonk (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks! I came up with some questions here. Enwebb (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- Sure, would be interesting! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe it could be a joint interview with Jens Lallensack, we are currently trying to figure out how start wider interest in writing palaeontology related articles. FunkMonk (talk) 01:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
May 2019 Tree of Life Newsletter
- May 2019—Issue 002
- Tree of Life
- Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!
|
|
|
|
- Fundamental changes being discussed at WikiProject Biology
On 23 May, user Prometheus720 created a talk page post, "Revamp of Wikiproject Biology--Who is In?". In the days since, WP:BIOL has been bustling with activity, with over a dozen editors weighing in on this discussion, as well as several others that have subsequently spawned. An undercurrent of thought is that WP:BIOL has too many subprojects, preventing editors from easily interacting and stopping a "critical mass" of collaboration and engagement. Many mergers and consolidations of subprojects have been tentatively listed, with a consolidation of WikiProjects Genetics + Molecular and Cell Biology + Computational Biology + Biophysics currently in discussion. Other ideas being aired include updating old participants lists, redesigning project pages to make them more user-friendly, and clearly identifying long- and short-term goals.
- Editor Spotlight: These editors want you to write about dinosaurs
Editors FunkMonk and Jens Lallensack had a very fruitful month, collaborating to bring two dinosaur articles to GA and then nominating them both for FA. They graciously decided to answer some questions for the first ToL Editor Spotlight, giving insight to their successful collaborations, explaining why you should collaborate with them, and also sharing some tidbits about their lives off-Wikipedia.
1) Enwebb: How long have you two been collaborating on articles?
- Jens Lallensack: I started in the German Wikipedia in 2005 but switched to the English Wikipedia because of its very active dinosaur project. My first major collaboration with FunkMonk was on Heterodontosaurus in 2015.
- FunkMonk: Yeah, we had interacted already on talk pages and through reviewing each other's articles, and at some point I was thinking of expanding Heterodontosaurus, and realised Jens had already written the German Wikipedia version, so it seemed natural to work together on the English one. Our latest collaboration was Spinophorosaurus, where by another coincidence, I had wanted to work on that article for the WP:Four Award, and it turned out that Jens had a German book about the expedition that found the dinosaur, which I wouldn't have been able to utilise with my meagre German skills. Between those, we also worked on Brachiosaurus, a wider Dinosaur Project collaboration between several editors.
2) Enwebb: Why dinosaurs?
- JL: Because of the huge public interest in them. But dinosaurs are also highly interesting from a scientific point of view: key evolutionary innovations emerged within this group, such as warm-bloodedness, gigantism, and flight. Dinosaur research is, together with the study of fossil human remains, the most active field in paleontology. New scientific techniques and approaches tend to get developed within this field. Dinosaur research became increasingly interdisciplinary, and now does not only rely on various fields of biology and geology, but also on chemistry and physics, among others. Dinosaurs are therefore ideal to convey scientific methodology to the general public.
- FM: As outlined above, dinosaurs have been described as a "gateway to science"; if you learn about dinosaurs, you will most likely also learn about a lot of scientific fields you would not necessarily be exposed to otherwise. On a more personal level, having grown up with and being influenced by various dinosaur media, it feels pretty cool to help spread knowledge about these animals, closest we can get to keeping them alive.
3) Enwebb: Why should other editors join you in writing articles related to paleontology? Are you looking to attract new editors, or draw in experienced editors from other areas of Wikipedia?
- JL: Because we are a small but active and helpful community. Our Dinosaur collaboration, one of the very few active open collaborations in Wikipedia, makes high-level writing on important articles easier and more fun. Our collaboration is especially open to editors without prior experience in high-level writing. But we do not only write articles: several WikiProject Dinosaur participants are artists who do a great job illustrating the articles, and maintain an extensive and very active image review system. In fact, a number of later authors started with contributing images.
- FM: Anyone who is interested in palaeontology is welcome to try writing articles, and we would be more than willing to help. I find that the more people that work on articles simultaneously with me, the more motivation I get to write myself. I am also one of those editors who started out contributing dinosaur illustrations and making minor edits, and only began writing after some years. But when I got to it, it wasn't as intimidating as I had feared, and I've learned a lot in the process. For example anatomy; if you know dinosaur anatomy, you have a very good framework for understanding the anatomy of other tetrapod animals, including humans.
4) Enwebb: Between the two of you, you have over 300 GA reviews. FunkMonk, you have over 250 of those. What keeps you coming back to review more articles?
- FM: One of the main reasons I review GANs is to learn more about subjects that seem interesting (or which I would perhaps not come across otherwise). There are of course also more practical reasons, such as helping an article on its way towards FAC, to reduce the GAN backlog, and to "pay back" when I have a nomination up myself. It feels like a win-win situation where I can be entertained by interesting info, while also helping other editors get their nominations in shape, and we'll end up with an article that hopefully serves to educate a lot of people (the greater good).
- JL: Because I enjoy reading Wikipedia articles and like to learn new things. In addition, reviews give me the opportunity to have direct contact with the authors, and help them to make their articles even better. This is quite rewarding for me personally. But I also review because I consider our GA and FA system to be of fundamental importance for Wikipedia. When I started editing Wikipedia (the German version), the article promotion reviews motivated me and improved my writing skills a lot. Submitting an article for review requires one to get serious and take additional steps to bring the article to the best quality possible. GAs and FAs are also a good starting point for readers, and may motivate them to become authors themselves.
5) Enwebb: What are your editing preferences? Any scripts or gadgets you find invaluable?
- FM: One script that everyone should know about is the duplink highlight tool. It will show duplinks within the intro and body of a given article separately, and it seems a lot of people still don't know about it, though they are happy when introduced to it. I really liked the citationbot too (since citation consistency is a boring chore to me), but it seems to be blocked at the moment due to some technical issues.
- JL: I often review using the Wikipedia Beta app on my smartphone, as it allows me to read without needing to sit in front of the PC. For writing, I find the reference management software Zotero invaluable, as it generates citation templates automatically, saving a lot of time.
- Editor's note: I downloaded Zotero and tried it for the first time and think it is a very useful tool. More here.
6) Enwebb: What would surprise the ToL community to learn about your life off-wiki?
- FM: Perhaps that I have no background in natural history/science, but work with animation and games. But fascination with and knowledge of nature and animals is actually very helpful when designing and animating characters and creatures, so it isn't that far off, and I can actually use some of the things I learn while writing here for my work (when I wrote the Dromaeosauroides article, it was partially to learn more about the animal for a design-school project).
- JL: That I am actually doing research on dinosaurs. Though I avoid writing about topics I publish research on, my Wikipedia work helps me to keep a good general overview over the field, and quite regularly I can use what I learned while writing for Wikipedia for my research.
Get in touch with these editors regarding collaboration at WikiProject Dinosaurs!
- Marine life continues to dominate ToL DYKs
|
You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
Sent by DannyS712 (talk) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 03:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 5
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Confuciusornis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Temporal region (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Images on Commons
When I come across a problem linked to Commons I think of you, because I think you are, or were, an administrator there. My problem revolves around the images of the tropical tree Lannea welwitschii, for which I am creating an article. There are five images on Commons [1] which, apart from the one showing the labels, are wrong/misleading. They show a smooth trunk, which may well be the correct tree, but the large leaves are not, and may be attached to a vine twining round the trunk. I realised they were wrong when I was adding a description to the article from a reliable source which described the leaves as being pinnate with 5 to 7 leaflets. Here is a picture which shows a leaf. Apart from removing the image from my article, what should I do about the Commons images? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yep, still an admin there, hmmm, can't evaluate whether the images show the correct thing or not (maybe it is some sort of variation or stage in the life cycle?), but I'd contact the uploader about it, and then remove the category and replace it with a category like "unidentified Anacardiaceae". For whatever it's worth, here is what seems to be the signage for the tree in that garden:[2] FunkMonk (talk) 10:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- I have contacted the uploader as you suggested but I don't think I want to muck around with categories on Commons. We'll see what transpires. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Can you check?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_KPG_Coelacanth_fossils check to see if this works because that link does not--Bubblesorg (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Why is this not just part of the coelacanth article? FunkMonk (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
I think my original intention was to include information that mr flink would not allow me to, and to just write page on something interesting that many people had not heard of. It shows up as the top search result, so im sure we would need to be careful if we want to redirect it--Bubblesorg (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
- Well, if what was implied was true, that creationist pseudo sources were used, it was rightly not allowed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
dude thats why i put it ther in the viliditay section to show that the source was creationist.--Bubblesorg (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
- But Wikipedia is no place for creationist sources, period. Except if the subject is creationism. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Thats the point, in the article i used that source to point out creationist, its syays this in the article "the one from Palestinian territories (named by its describer Khalaf as Macropomoides palaestina) were written by a creationist and they had no drawn out pictures.[10][11][12]" Did you read it? Im trying to say that i put it in because i wanted to show people it was a creationist source, come one man its been here since https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Post_Cretaceous_Coelacanth_fossils&oldid=899779009. --Bubblesorg (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Sure--Bubblesorg (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Nominating an article for FA
Hi @FunkMonk:, I saw your name as a mentor in this list and saw your were specifically interested in zoology. Well, I am a first-time nominator, and this article doesn't specifically pursue to zoology but I thought of consulting you anyway. I am talking about the article Extinction, which I feel follows the WP:FAC and is ready for nomination. Any suggestions from your side. Thanks! Justlookingforthemoment (talk) 11:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, in general it is preferred that the main writers of an article nominate it for FAC, since they would be more familiar with the sources used. But if you feel up for the task, it should be possible, but it is usually best to go through WP:peer review and WP:good article nomination first, especially for first time nominators. That said, the article seems to have some major problems at first glance, such as long stretches of unsourced text. So it would need a thorough rework, perhaps even rewrite, to be eligible. For a first time nomination, I'd suggest a much simpler and more restricted subject, extinction is a very complex subject, which the current article probably doesn't cover entirely in its scope. I could imagine it could get double as long as it is. Maybe you could try a subject within extinction first for a start? FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Science Fiction Definition
Of course it's a restrictive definition. That's the point. And everybody uses it. A movie or story isn't science fiction just because it's fiction that involves science. It needs space ships and/or time travel. Star Trek and Star Wars, for example. Just as fantasy is stuff like Excalibur or Merlin. Harry Potter isn't fantasy just because it has magic and wizards. It's children's adventure fiction with supernatural elements. NOT fantasy. It's not set in a medieval setting, after all. Lord Of The Rings is fantasy. Calling Jurassic Park science fiction would be like calling all music from the 80s "80s music."Think about this. Once Bread becomes toast, you can't make it back into bread. (talk) 04:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Istiodactylus scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Istiodactylus article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 11, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 11, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.
We also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors up to the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
TFA
Thank you today for Gallimimus, "made famous by appearing in the movie Jurassic Park (like Dilophosaurus which was promoted recently), and is therefore the most popular article about an "ostrich dinosaur"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- Welcome as always! FunkMonk (talk) 17:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- Such as today's Echo parakeet, "about what was once considered "the world's rarest parrots", since saved from extinction"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
June 2019 Tree of Life Newsletter
- June 2019—Issue 003
- Tree of Life
- Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!
|
|
|
|
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lannea_welwitschii-Jardin_botanique_Meise_(5).jpg){kind=link}
| Project name | Relative WikiWork |
|---|---|
| Cats | 4.79
|
| Fisheries and fishing | 4.9
|
| Dogs | 4.91
|
| Viruses | 4.91
|
| ToL | 4.94
|
| Cetaceans | 4.97
|
| Primates | 4.98
|
| Sharks | 5.04
|
| All wikiprojects average | 5.05
|
| Dinosaurs | 5.12
|
| Equine | 5.15
|
| Bats | 5.25
|
| Mammals | 5.32
|
| Aquarium fishes | 5.35
|
| Hypericaceae | 5.38
|
| Turtles | 5.4
|
| Birds | 5.46
|
| Australian biota | 5.5
|
| Marine life | 5.54
|
| Animals | 5.56
|
| Paleontology | 5.57
|
| Rodents | 5.58
|
| Amphibians and Reptiles | 5.64
|
| Fungi | 5.65
|
| Bivalves | 5.66
|
| Plants | 5.67
|
| Algae | 5.68
|
| Arthropods | 5.69
|
| Hymenoptera | 5.72
|
| Microbiology | 5.72
|
| Cephalopods | 5.74
|
| Fishes | 5.76
|
| Ants | 5.79
|
| Gastropods | 5.8
|
| Spiders | 5.86
|
| Insects | 5.9
|
| Beetles | 5.98
|
| Lepidoptera | 5.98
|
- Spineless editors overwhelmed by stubs
Within the Tree of Life and its many subprojects, there is an abundance of stubs. Welcome to Wikipedia, what's new, right? However, based on all wikiprojects listed (just over two thousand), the Tree of Life project is worse off in average article quality than most. Based on the concept of relative WikiWork (the average number of "steps" needed to have a project consisting of all featured articles (FAs), where stub status → FA consists of six steps), only seven projects within the ToL have an average rating of "start class" or better. Many projects, particularly those involving invertebrates, hover at an average article quality slightly better than a stub. With relative WikiWorks of 5.98 each, WikiProject Lepidoptera and WikiProject Beetles have the highest relative WikiWork of any project. Given that invertebrates are incredibly speciose, it may not surprise you that many articles about them are lower quality. WikiProject Beetles, for example, has over 20 times more articles than WikiProject Cats. Wikipedia will always be incomplete, so we should take our relatively low WikiWork as motivation to write more articles that are also better in quality.
- Editor Spotlight: Showing love to misfit taxa
We're joined for this month's Editor Spotlight by NessieVL, a long-time contributor who lists themselves as a member of WikiProject Fungus, WikiProject Algae, and WikiProject Cephalopods.
1) Enwebb: How did you come to edit articles about organisms and taxonomic groups?
- Nessie: The main force, then and now, driving me to create or edit articles is thinking "Why isn't there an article on that on Wikipedia?" Either I'll read about some rarely-sighted creature in the deep sea or find something new on iNaturalist and want to learn more. First stop (surprise!) is Wikipedia, and many times there is just a stub or no page at all. Sometimes I just add the source that got me to the article, not sometimes I go deep and try to get everything from the library or online journals and put it all in an article. The nice thing about taxa is the strong precedent that all accepted extant taxa are notable, so one does not need to really worry about doing a ton of research and having the page get removed. I was super worried about this as a new editor: I still really dislike conflict so if I can avoid it I do. Anyway, the most important part is stitching an article in to the rest of Wikipedia: Linking all the jargon, taxonomers, pollinators, etc., adding categories, and putting in the correct WikiProjects. Recently I have been doing more of the stitching-in stuff with extant articles. The last deep-dive article I made was Karuka at the end of last year, which is a bit of a break for me. I guess it's easier to do all the other stuff on my tablet while watching TV.
2) Enwebb: Many editors in the ToL are highly specialized on a group of taxa. A look at your recently created articles includes much diversity, though, with viruses, bacteria, algae, and cnidarians all represented—are there any commonalities for the articles you work on? Would you say you're particularly interested in certain groups?
- Nessie: I was a nerd from a time when that would get you beat up, so I like odd things and underdogs. I also avoid butting heads, so not only do I find siphonophores and seaweeds fascinating I don't have to worry about stepping on anyone's toes. I go down rabbitholes where I start writing an article like Mastocarpus papillatus because I found some growing on some rocks, then in my research I see it is parasitized by Pythium porphyrae, which has no article, and how can that be for an oomycete that oddly lives in the ocean and also attacks my tasty nori. So then I wrote that article and that got me blowing off the dust on other Oomycota articles, encouraged by the pull of propagating automatic taxoboxes. Once you've done the taxonomy template for the genus, well then you might as well do all the species now that the template is taken care of for them too. and so on until I get sucked in somewhere else. I think it's good to advocate for some of these 'oddball' taxa as it makes it easier for editors to expand their range from say plants to the pathogenic microorganisms of their favorite plant.
- My favorite clades though, It's hard to pick for a dilettante like me. I like working on virus taxonomy, but I can't think of a specific virus species that I am awed by. Maybe Tulip breaking virus for teaching us economics or Variola virus for having so many smallpox deities, one of which was popularly sung about by Desi Arnaz and then inspired the name of a cartoon character who was then misremembered and then turned into a nickname for Howard Stern's producer Gary Dell'Abate. Sorry, really had to share that chain, but for a species that's not a staple food it probably has the most deities. But anyway, for having the most species that wow me, I love a good fungus or algae, but that often is led by my stomach. Also why I seem to research so many plant articles. You can't eat siphonophores, at least I don't, but they are fascinating with their federalist colonies of zooids. Bats are all amazing, but the task force seems to have done so much I feel the oomycetes and slime moulds need more love. Same thing with dinosaurs (I'm team Therizinosaurus though). But honestly, every species has that one moment in the research where you just go, wow, that's so interesting. For instance, I loved discovering that the picture-winged fly (Delphinia picta) has a mating dance that involves blowing bubbles. Now I keep expecting them to show me when they land on my arm, but no such luck yet.
3) Enwebb: I noticed that many of your recent edits utilize the script Rater, which aids in quickly reassessing the quality and importance of an article. Why is it important to update talk page assessments of articles? I also noticed that the quality rating you assign often aligns with ORES, a script that uses machine-learning to predict article quality. Coincidence?
- Nessie: I initially started focusing on WikiProject talk page templates because they seem to be the key to data collecting and maintenance for articles, much more so than categories. This is where you note of an article needs an image, or audio, or a range map. It's how the cleanup listing bot sorts articles, and how Plantdrew does his automated taxobox usage stats. The latter inspired me to look for articles on organisms that are not assigned to any ToL WikiProjects which initially was in the thousands. I got it down to zero with just copypasta so you can imagine I was excited when I saw the rater tool. Back then I rated everything stub/low because it was faster: I couldn't check every article for the items on the B-class checklists. Plus each project has their own nuances to rating scales and I thought the editors in the individual projects would take it from there. I also thought all species were important, so how can I choose a favorite? Now it is much easier with the rater tool and the apparent consensus with Abductive's method of rating by the pageviews (0-9 views/day is low, 10-99 is med, 100-999 is high...). For the quality I generally go by the ORES rating, you caught me. It sometimes is thrown off by a long list of species or something, but it's generally good for stub to C: above that needs formal investigation and procedures I am still learning about. It seems that in the ToL projects we don't focus so much on getting articles to GA/FA so it's been harder to pick up. It was a little culture shock when I went on the Discord server and it seemed everyone was obsessed with getting articles up in quality. I think ToL is focusing on all the missing taxa and (re)organizing it all, which when you already have articles on every anime series or whatever you can focus on bulking the articles up more. In any event, on my growing to-do list is trying to get an article up to FA or GA and learn the process that way so I can better do the quality ratings and not just kick the can down the road.
4) Enwebb: What, if anything, can ToL and its subprojects do to better support collaboration and coordination among editors? How can we improve?
- Nessie: I mentioned earlier that the projects are the main way maintenance is done. And it is good that we have a bunch of subprojects that let those tasks get broken up into manageable pieces. Frankly I'm amazed anything gets done with WikiProject Plants with how huge its scope is. Yet this not only parcels out the work but the discussion as well. A few editors like Peter coxhead and Plantdrew keep an eye on many of the subprojects and spread the word, but it's still easy for newer editors to get a little lost. There should be balance between the lumping and splitting. The newsletter helps by crossing over all the WikiProjects, and if the discord channel picked up that would help too. Possibly the big Enwiki talk page changes will help as well.
5) Enwebb: What would surprise the ToL community to learn about your life off-Wikipedia?
- Nessie: I'm not sure anything would be surprising. I focus on nature offline too, foraging for mushrooms or wild plants and trying to avoid ticks and mosquitos. I have started going magnet fishing lately, more to help clean up the environment than in the hopes of finding anything valuable. But it would be fun to find a weapon and help solve a cold case or something.
- June DYKs
|
You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.
sent by ZLEA via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
The paragraph of Asilisaurus which begins "In a recently published research conducted by paleontologists from Virginia Tech ..." is basically incomprehensible.
Can you fix this or lob it to someone who can? Thanks - 2804:14D:5C59:8300:0:0:0:1000 (talk) 05:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Triceratops
FunkMonk, I hope that you don't take this personally, but for security reasons I adhere to the strict policy of never disclosing my e-mail address to any Wikipedian. And I'm about as rigid in such matters as a block of granite. In happier times, I would have been delighted to make your acquaintance on a more informal level, as I've come to know you as an intelligent and kind person — who, of course, shares an interest in a subject very dear to me!
Greetings, --MWAK (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- Aw, well, no problem, I can send it to you through Wetransfer rather than as an attached file as well. Anything you prefer? FunkMonk (talk) 09:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
- I see this specimen for the first time now but I'm not impressed. Such depressions have been reported before. It has been argued that there is a clear distinction between Triceratops and Torosaurus regarding the position of such depressions. With Torosaurus they would be completely surrounded by the parietal, while in Triceratops, they would be partly located in the squamosal. At first glance this "Count Trikeula" seems to represent the latter condition. A really good corroboration of the toromorph hypothesis would consist in a frill with five epiparietals, with one half having a large circular perforation of the parietal only, while the other half shows a depression extending over the squamosal :o).--MWAK (talk) 08:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think we will have to keep the Tricera/Toro articles separate for a while, if not forever... By the way, MWAK, if you are ever interested in doing another collaboration, feel free to suggest it. I have been thinking of expanding Cimoliopterus for a while (I think it could be fun to get one of those old British pterosaur fragments that only recently received their own genera to FAC, and I started the article, which would make it eligible for the WP:four award), and since you wrote most of the current text there, I thought you might be interested. FunkMonk (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- I see this specimen for the first time now but I'm not impressed. Such depressions have been reported before. It has been argued that there is a clear distinction between Triceratops and Torosaurus regarding the position of such depressions. With Torosaurus they would be completely surrounded by the parietal, while in Triceratops, they would be partly located in the squamosal. At first glance this "Count Trikeula" seems to represent the latter condition. A really good corroboration of the toromorph hypothesis would consist in a frill with five epiparietals, with one half having a large circular perforation of the parietal only, while the other half shows a depression extending over the squamosal :o).--MWAK (talk) 08:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
- I must admit that I deeply enjoy working with you. The subject is of course great fun. Let's first determine whether a relevant expansion is possible by the simple expedient of starting to expand it further.--MWAK (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Crystal_Palace_pterosaurs.jpg){kind=link}
- Indeed: that alone is reason enough to create more room :o). It also highlights the encyclopaedic function of Wikipedia because it shows the sculptures in a pristine condition before having been vandalised... I noticed that in the Dutch article I once created, the description section is larger so I was of a mind to start there. But if you had the same intention, I could switch to some species research.--MWAK (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- The article only has 37kb readable prose so has room for expansion too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I'll further expand Triceratops as well :o).--MWAK (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Feel free to start on description, as for species and history, I imagine you have a better overview of the early literature, though, so maybe I should take the more recent literature? I want to include the weird 1922 skull restoration by Gustav von Arthaber too, it seems to be public domain. The paper[7] is in German, though, so you can probably get more out of it, if you have access (if not, we can do the Wetransfer trick). FunkMonk (talk) 00:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- I have the paper, so I'll start with von Arthaber, whose images are as quixotic as the man himself. We can even use him for a Paleobiology chapter.--MWAK (talk) 05:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- I've now added his reconstruction (will add the others too), but it raises a few questions. What is the lower jaw based on? And what is "von Arthaber 1919" that he cites in the caption? Can't find it in his reference list... FunkMonk (talk) 09:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- The last question is the most easily answered: von Arthaber, G. 1919. "Studien über Flugsaurier auf Grund der Bearbeitung des Wiener Exemplars von Dorygnathus banthensis Theod Sp.", Denkschriften der königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Klasse 97: 391-464 This is likely the same content. I'm not sure where that lower jaw is coming from...--MWAK (talk) 10:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- The text suggests that he considered O. sedgwicki as the main example of a long-jawed type. Believing most species to be invalid, he apparently felt free to combine jaw material as needed. O. sedgwicki preserves a lower jaw. However, there are two objections against the hypothesis that it is this jaw which was pictured: it has a different profile and tooth count; O. sedgwicki also has upper jaw material, so it would be logical to restore this species in stead of O. cuvieri. Perhaps he simply changed the lower jaw a bit to fit the better upper jaw of the latter.--MWAK (talk) 09:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- Strange, definitely warrants mention! By the way, do you see any issues with the life restoration? Then I'll fix it. One thing, according to Witmer, the nostrils should be set at the front of the nares. FunkMonk (talk) 11:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- A tricky problem. On the one hand, their incorporation into a nasoantorbital fenestra would suggest a forward position relative to the entire opening, on the other hand they likely wouldn't have had some "sniffing" function while a piscivorous lifestyle suggests a retracted placement. Fossa correlates are not going to help us here. Perhaps they had slits with a variable nostril opening. On the whole, the restoration is within the realm of possibility. Proportions also seem to be roughly correct, with the skull about 50% longer than the torso and the trunk about as long as the neck.--MWAK (talk) 05:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- Strange, definitely warrants mention! By the way, do you see any issues with the life restoration? Then I'll fix it. One thing, according to Witmer, the nostrils should be set at the front of the nares. FunkMonk (talk) 11:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- I've now added his reconstruction (will add the others too), but it raises a few questions. What is the lower jaw based on? And what is "von Arthaber 1919" that he cites in the caption? Can't find it in his reference list... FunkMonk (talk) 09:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- I have the paper, so I'll start with von Arthaber, whose images are as quixotic as the man himself. We can even use him for a Paleobiology chapter.--MWAK (talk) 05:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Feel free to start on description, as for species and history, I imagine you have a better overview of the early literature, though, so maybe I should take the more recent literature? I want to include the weird 1922 skull restoration by Gustav von Arthaber too, it seems to be public domain. The paper[7] is in German, though, so you can probably get more out of it, if you have access (if not, we can do the Wetransfer trick). FunkMonk (talk) 00:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I'll further expand Triceratops as well :o).--MWAK (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- The article only has 37kb readable prose so has room for expansion too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed: that alone is reason enough to create more room :o). It also highlights the encyclopaedic function of Wikipedia because it shows the sculptures in a pristine condition before having been vandalised... I noticed that in the Dutch article I once created, the description section is larger so I was of a mind to start there. But if you had the same intention, I could switch to some species research.--MWAK (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
|
Four Award | |
| Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Spinophorosaurus. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC) |
Megalosaurus record
Okay http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/ActaGeologica/article/view/3917/4555 I am trying to find records of a Cretaceous Megalosaurus, here ONE of the most recent articles http://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/ActaGeologica/article/view/3917/4555 It displays a possible Cretaceous Megalosaurus footprint, I will be finding more, just go to the talk page and make the section, I will follow right there --Bubblesorg (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hi, in general, when doing sweeping changes which are in doubt, bring them up on the talk pages, so that they can be discussed first. You are using a lot of questionable websites in general, which is counterproductive. FunkMonk (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
the study I gave was from the university of Barcelona and is actually from a scientific paper --Bubblesorg (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- That paper is outdated, don't use. Megalosaurus was a waste basket taxon where all kinds of fossils have been ascribed to, but now it is restricted to the original Middle Jurassic material from the Stonesfield Slate. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I thought megalosaurus was only a wasebasket during the 1800s--Bubblesorg (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- Er, no? It stayed a wastebasket through all of the 1900s until the 2010 revision. 128.189.221.20 (talk) 00:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Kosmoceratops
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Kosmoceratops 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) 05:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
TFA
Thank you for the "pterosaur (or pterodactyl)", a group "often overshadowed by dinosaurs (or incorrectly assumed to be dinosaurs), so this article can hopefully serve as an example of how such an article can be written (modelled on the structure of dinosaur articles). I picked this particular genus due to the, for pterosaur standards, not too confusing literature, and the many nice, free available images. It is also an interesting animal in its own right, as it may have been an inland scavenger, whereas pterosaurs have traditionally been considered fish-eaters." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
can you check the progress of Basilosaurus?
Is mein edits now looking good. Elimade said its fine, just remove some images and I did. --Bubblesorg (talk) 00:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Staffie - Talk page
And this, my northern friend, is why I tend to keep well away from dog articles! William Harris
talk 08:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hmm, that escalated quickly. I'll save that issue for last... FunkMonk (talk) 11:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- A prudent approach. William Harris
talk 12:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- A prudent approach. William Harris
- This is going well. William Harris
talk 00:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- This is going well. William Harris
- You have more patience than I do; I would have put the GA review on hold as the article is not stable, and walked away for a while until they could form a compromise. The fuse appears to have been lit by me reminding editors that they have not addressed my issue that was raised BEFORE the nomination for GA, and I raised it in the same section OUTSIDE of the GA review. However, I am sure that you will persevere. William Harris talk 01:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- You have more patience than I do; I would have put the GA review on hold as the article is not stable, and walked away for a while until they could form a compromise. The fuse appears to have been lit by me reminding editors that they have not addressed my issue that was raised BEFORE the nomination for GA, and I raised it in the same section OUTSIDE of the GA review. However, I am sure that you will persevere. William Harris
- Apart from your classic reply of "...I've just never dealt with this manner of responding before...", there is about 3 hours of other reading in that one review. William Harris talk 04:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Apart from your classic reply of "...I've just never dealt with this manner of responding before...", there is about 3 hours of other reading in that one review. William Harris
FunkMonk, I've unwatched the article. It's a BATTLEGROUND and has become a toxic environment. I have tried to accommodate your suggestions and those of regular collaborators, but I will not work with an editor spewing PAGs and casting aspersions. I've done enough of these GA/FAs as both reviewer and nom that I can recognize trouble when I see it. Unless the disruption is stopped by an admin that GA review is dead in the water. You won't hurt my feelings if you put it on hold. Atsme Talk 📧 17:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- I can understand your frustration. I can also just promote the article to get it over with, but I believe that would just unleash an edit war on the article itself, because there will be no ongoing GAN to "shield" it. But if I keep the GAN open, it will create more tranquillity, and I have no problem keeping it open indefinitely if required. You can take a break from the article then if you need it, then maybe the folks there will cool down in the meantime. To me, it doesn't matter how long or what manner it takes to get an article to GA. FunkMonk (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Paraceratherium scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that Paraceratherium has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 17 August 2019. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 17, 2019. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)