User talk:UtherSRG/Archive Jul 2007

Standardised opening line for BIRD articles

Pardon my uninvited intervention on the matter of parentheses in the opening line of BIRD articles. As far as I can tell, there is absolutely no consensus on the matter. It is not mentioned anywhere on WP:BIRD. It has been discussed on the WP:BIRD talk page but, as you can readily see, there was no consensus achieved there, either. The simplest summary of that discussion would be "either way is fine." Interestingly, as well, if you look at the three examples given in the table at WP:BIRD#Bird names and article titles, they all use commas to set off the binomial in the first sentence. From a descriptivist perspective, in the primary and secondary literature, binomial names as parenthetical interlocutions offset by commas are every bit as common as are those surrounded by parentheses. Now, none of this is intended to justify any revert warring that may be going on. Recognition of the fact that both styles are correct, however, might be able to defuse any heightened feelings on the matter without having to resort to actions as severe as user blocks, no? Again, if there is something I have missed, please point it out and thanks for your patience with me. Cheers! — Dave (Talk | contribs) 13:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Which is why I want User:Stavenn to enjoin the conversation there and not try to shout down those who disagree with him. I blocked him as much for his lack of civility as for his edit warring. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I've picked up the above, and I'm a bit concerned that a user was blocked over an issue in which you were a participant, which gives the impression of unfairness, whether the block was justified or not. Better, if you think a block is needed, to let another admin decide and implement the action. Jimfbleak 12:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Reorganizing Right whale page

Marskell thought your input here may be helpful....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I need your input on this

See bottom of thread Talk:Florida_panther#status_as_a_subspecies. I don't much like looking like an idiot. What does the MSW3 actually say on the panther? Marskell 19:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Uther. But keep watching the page; I doubt we've heard the end of it. Marskell 12:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Of that I have no doubt. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Koala (popular culture)

There is currently a problem with the title of the Koala popular culture page.

Your title of Koala in popular culture was moved to Koalas in popular culture by Kjoon.

Because there are also official Koala emblems and logo etc., as well as koalas in popular culture, I have now moved the page to Koala emblems and popular culture (in a similar way to Kangaroo emblems and popular culture) — and, because there are also official Black Swan emblems, as well as popular culture, I will do the same with the Black Swan culture references page, to keep the pages uniform. Figaro 14:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for deleting this useless Panthera-list.... and for integrating it into the panthera article. If I can help you with cleaning up in the felids in engl. wikipedia I would like to tdo this.... Greetings --Altaileopard 11:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I finally got to that part of Carnivora. I'm about to move on to Viverridae. Anything else you want me to look at in Felidae before I move on? - UtherSRG (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw your answer just now. I will look through the cats during the next days and tell you when I find bigger problems or mistakes.--Altaileopard 13:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Problem with another user regarding brackets for scientific names of fauna

Could you please help with regard to a user Stavenn who is continuously removing brackets from the scientific name of the Superb Lyrebird — reverting my edits after I have been replacing the brackets on the page. Stavenn is of the personal opinion that brackets should not be used for the scientific names. Could you please write to him, and explain the situation with regard to scientific names for fauna to him. I would very much appreciate your help with this. Thank you. Figaro 08:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks to be resolved for now. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the matter has not been resolved because the user Stavenn is, once again, causing the same problem — both with the Superb Lyrebird and Albert's Lyrebird, where he has again been removing the brackets around their scientific names and adding a comma before the scientific names. I have had to replace the brackets twice tonight (so far) after he has removed them (at the moment there are brackets around the scientific names, but I do not know how long Stavenn will allow the brackets to remain on the pages). Could you please write to him, as a Wikipedia Administrator who is working on the fauna project, and explain about Wikipedia policy with regard to brackets around scientific names on fauna pages to him. I really would very much appreciate your assistance in this. Thanks. Figaro

Thank you for helping me. All the best. Figaro 11:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Stavenn is again reverting my placing of brackets around the scientific names on bird articles. It would appear that Stavenn is continuing to object to brackets being placed around scientific names. This reverting of my edits, by Stavenn, is getting very tedious and frustrating. I am sorry to worry you about this again. Figaro 13:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I have just noticed that Stavenn is again removing the brackets from around scientific names — and has described the edits made by both you and myself as vandals (as his stated reason for reverting the edit for Western Crowned Pigeon) because we had followed Wikipedia procedure and put the brackets around the scientific words back after he had changed the brackets to a comma. Obviously Stavenn thinks that it is okay to be downright abusive to people and have them falsely labelled as vandals on Wikipedia if they don't follow what he personally wants. Figaro 11:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least it's now on WP:BIRD, and it looks like he's going to get overturned. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Parenthesis

Please leave the scientific name in parenthesis. If you have a problem with this, take it to an appropriate discussion page, such as the talk page for WP:BIRD. If you continue to make these edits without discussion, I will view it as vandalism, and block your edit privileges. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

On what base ? what's wrong to put scientific name without brackets (WHICH WAS THE ORIGINAL WHEN ARTICLE CREATED) & there is no rules for that. I don't see any use of brackets in scientific name, it just personal (yours) preference. And you said I vandal the page(s) that I started because some kid told you ? Get real ! He's the one makes edits without discussion ! --Stavenn 15:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

And now you see you're wrong... - UtherSRG (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Re Carnivora

Thanks for cleaning up the references sources with inline ref. I'm not very good at that because I can only get back to these articles time permitting. We have new research studies out on the phylogeny and I'm trying to resolve the caniform-feliform split and the Canidae-Ursidae group split. I have sources with new dates. I'll be updating the cats in the article pretty soon too and probably the Miacoidea/Miacidea connection. I've emailed some of the authors to try help clarify what they're stating in their articles. Some of it is still not clear. Thanks for watching my back. Great work! :) Valich 04:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and you're welcome. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Lion-tailed Macaque

Thanks for your edits. I need to work on my citation skills.-Marcus 15:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks heaps for moving my page "Marsupial lion" to "Marsupial Lion", when I created this page I accidently forgot to make lion start with a capital and have not had the time or patients to learn how to properly move it to "Marsupial Lion". So yeh thanks again. P.S. on yo talk pg it says yo real name is Stacey sumtin but den it says yo a male on sum box? sup wit dat man or woman newaiz jus tawt id say dat incase it was a mistake TeePee-20.7 08:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It's complicated... since there are multiple species that are generally called "marsupial lions", the lower case article should redirect to the family and not to the species. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeh but it's not completely lower case only the "lion" (Marsupial lion) part of the name, which by the way used to be the name of my article which you changed, and there are already links to "Thylacoleonidae" when you type in as you said "marsupial lions". So I think that it should redirect to the species as when you are talking about the actual "Marsupial Lion" this is the animal that you are referring to. TeePee-20.7 08:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

But that is incorrect. The "marsupial" part should not be capitalized under either of the sometimes waring standards for naming mammals: it is not a proper noun, and when referring to the family, "marsupial lion" is not a species. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I am confused by your previous comment. What do you mean by the Marsupial part of the name should not be capitalised? I mean regardless of the naming conventions the name of this animal SHOULD be capitalised as it is not only the name of the article, but also the name of the species and in this case IS a noun due to that reason (name of the animal species). Also when referring to the family? That was my point exactly, that was the point I was trying to make. When someone types in "marsupial lion" they are referring to the animal "Marsupial Lion" and not the family, this is why it should directly link to the animal and NOT the family.TeePee-20.7 09:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

There's two uses of the term "marsupial lion". In reference to the species, the term should be capitalized: "Marsupial Lion". In reference to the family, it should not be capitalized. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeh but do you see the point I am trying to make, I know it SHOULD be capitalised but when people type in "Marsupial lion" it should redirect to the actual species because that is the article they are after and not one on the family. Besides as I have already previously mentioned when you type in the plural form it redirects to "Thylacoleonidae" anyway. TeePee-20.7 15:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the lower case should redirect to the family. I would make no sense for this sentence in your method: Wakaleo bladibaensis is a marsupial lion. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Is that even a species, or are you just using that as an example? OK I see the point you are making in that it would be completely wrong for genus "Wakaleo" to link to the species "Marsupial Lion", but in saying that you can always pipe the link to the plural form (marsupial lion) which would redirect back to "Thylacoleonidae". Also there isn't a real need for the link anyway as you can just directly click the link of "Thylacoleonidae" and you can always reword the sentence to say "marsupial lions". E.g. 'Wakaleo bladibaensis' belongs to a group of marsupial carnivores referred to as the marsupial lions. TeePee-20.7 17:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You or I can, but an unknowing editor won't know to do that. Make it simple. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

ARRGH FINE! As you are most probably on this more than me (judging from your user page which I will probably never be bothered doing!) and as I was raised to respect my elders, which you happen to be, I will let you have your way and leave it be. Even though I still believe it should be the way I am saying. P.S. What are you referring to the piping? Because if so I presented two alternatives that you havn't seemed to taken into account. TeePee-20.7 18:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

P.P.S. Where are you from? Like what country? TeePee-20.7 03:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The US. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh OK well I'm from Down Under, Australia and the reason I have felt so strongly towards this is because whenever I have heard reference to the "marsupial lion" it has always been for the species. And not long ago when the nullabor discovery was made I had been to the museum in which there is a model replica of the Marsupial Lion and it refers to the animal once again. Also probably a week before that visit I had watched a documentary on either ABC or SBS (local TV stations) which had referred to the species in which computer simulations on what it was probably like were featured. TeePee-20.7 07:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

And how did they refer to other members of the family? - UtherSRG (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they noted them by their scientific name, but the point being that they were talking about the actual "Marsupial Lion" throughout the entire program and not the family. TeePee-20.7 07:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Cuscus

Hi --- the delete log for Cuscus shows that you removed it 3 times:

   * 21:13, 15 May 2007 UtherSRG (Talk | contribs) deleted "Cuscus" (content was: '#redirect Phalanger')
   * 09:40, 15 April 2007 UtherSRG (Talk | contribs) deleted "Cuscus"
   * 13:15, 28 February 2006 UtherSRG (Talk | contribs) deleted "Cuscus" (content was: '#REDIRECT Common Spotted Cuscus')

The cuscus is a name for marsupials from the genus Phalanger, can you tell me why you have been deleting the redirect or article? GB 12:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Because that is incorrect. It is the common name for the species in 4 of the 6 genera in Phalangeridae (see possum for the full listing of species). Of the three deletions, one was a redirect to only one of the 22 species, one was an article about the food (a misspelling) and one was a redirect to Phalanger. All three were incorrect. If you would like to write an article about all 4 genera and 22 species, I can assist your endeavor. Otherwise, it should remain deleted. The Wikipedia search for "cuscus" will provide an adequate listing of related articles. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer - It looks like a more comprehensive article will be needed to keep it in place! GB 21:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Bobcat is up

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bobcat Marskell 21:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like things are going well. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Giant Fossa

I don't know where you got this information, but if you check the ocelot section in wikipedia, you can see that both the modern fossa and the ocelot were about the same size, so the giant fossa would not be the same size as an ocelot. Plus check these sites [[1]] and[[2]], the clearly state that the Giant Fossa is the size of a leopard, not a ocelot. Besides, how can something that small take down lemurs the size of apes and the natives had to be scared of a fossa the size of a big cat, not a puny ocelot. Johnny542 19:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Kitty cats

Do you have online access to Science? If not, do you want me to get the article to you somehow. It's quite interesting. Here's what it says: Based on a mitochondrial DNA study of 979 domestic and wild cats from Europe, Asia, and Africa, Felis silvestris lybica split off from the European wild cat about 173,000 years ago, and from the subspecies F. s. ornata and F. s. cafra about 131,000 years ago. Modern domestic cats are derived from at least five "Mitochondrial Eves". About 10,000 years ago, some individual Felis silvestris lybica were domesticated in the Middle East. None of the other subspecies of Felis silvestris contributed to the domestic breed, and many of those subspecies own mtDNA is being swamped by interbreeding with feral cats. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Speciate (talk • contribs). Yes, but noting if any of the subspecies is actually more closely related to some other species would invalidate this, and such work had already been done. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sugar Glider

Because you did not mention why you were reverting my edit (where I had added the word 'when', in an effort to try to improve the grammar of the sentence) you have made it appear that I am a vandal (which is unfair because I am not a vandal). Could you please, in future, comment exactly why you are reverting my edits when you do so. Figaro 02:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I use Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation_popups to do reverting. It does not allow for comments. Sorry. The comment it automatically leaves is neutral, neither pointing towards or away from vandalism. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Question about source for taxonomy

When it comes to primate articles on Wikipedia, is there an end all, be all source for taxonomy? I've read the Wikipedia:WikiProject Primates page and I know that there are four sources listed, but the two I have access to (Mikko's and Primate taxonomy) don't always agree. Specifically, in the area I'm trying to write most for (Adapoids/Omomyoids), there is disagreement as to whether or not it is Notharctidae/Notharctinae or Nothactidae/Nothactinae. I have always been taught and used the former, but Mikko's, which appears to be what is most followed, says that there is no 'r'. I made the change just a few seconds ago to the Adapiform page thinking it was a typo, then realized that most relevant articles spell it that way. I'm not personally attached to one in particular, but want to follow whatever is appropriate. I'm fairly new here so I thought maybe you could help? Thanks so much! Thelsmotto 21:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've seen both as well, but thought "Nothactidae" was more prevalent. I could be wrong. For extinct primate taxonomy there really aren't that many sources out there. I've focused primarily on the extant species and have a growing collection of good works, but nothing talks much at all about the extinct families. Good luck! - UtherSRG (talk) 21:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Decent work on Notharctinae. I've made some cleanup edits. You should inline your refs using <ref> tags. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: FinnWars

Just a quick note (after using these wonderful new tools) that I restored this article that you deleted - basically, I'm contesting the PROD, because it should not have been valid in the first place; the article that had already been kept at AfD. Hope you don't mind. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)