User talk:Degutopia

Rodents project
Thanks for expressing your interest in the rodents WikiProject. This project has now been created at WP:RODENT, and we'd be happy to have you in. Ucucha 14:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, is there anything I can specifically do to help at the moment relating to caviomorphs? Degutopia (talk) 14:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a lot that can be done--as you may have seen, most caviomorph articles are stubs of a few sentences. In fact, virtually every article needs work, so it's really up to you what you'd like to do. One specific thing you might want to do is expanding and improving the degu article. As a pet, it's one of the high-profile members of the group, after all, and it should have a good article. The article on the guinea pig, which is currently a featured article, is a good example of what the article should look like. Ucucha 14:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Funny you should say that, I do work on the degu article from time to time, I agree it is in bad need of renovating with full references. I'll see what I can do. Also I've just finished working on the 'Infanticide in rodents' page which was on the requested list; feedback appreciated :) Degutopia (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am sorry for not coming back here earlier. I just saw a few of your changes on my watchlist; thanks for improving those degu articles!
 * I've had to undo your move of Bridges's Degu. Cut-and-paste moves are discouraged on Wikipedia, because they hide the article history. Instead, you should use the "move" tab (above right) to move a page. In this case, Bridges's Degu can no longer be easily moved to Bridges' degu, because the latter page has an edit history, so that only administrators can move the page. The proper thing to do now is to post a requested move on the Talk:Bridges's Degu page (I'll be willing to do that for you if needed).
 * Regarding the substance of your move, the capitalization of common names is a long-standing contentious issue here (see the archives of WT:MAMMAL). Lately, the consensus seems to be towards not capitalizing for mammals (Talk:Sperm whale, Talk:Swamp Rabbit are the latest two discussions), but it's important to remember this history. You also change "Bridges's" into "Bridges'"; I think Wikipedia conventions leave it open to editorial discretion which of those to use, but I personally would prefer the one that is used most often in the sources. Which one that is, I don't know. Ucucha 14:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ucucha, it wasn't the capitalisation I was bothered about (although I agree that it really shouldn't be) but the wrong apostrophe usage (Bridges's rather then Bridges'). I didn't realise about the edit history problem, yes I will try and get an administrator to sort this out. Degutopia (talk) 14:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Wrong" is a big word for that, see WP:MOS. I have no opinion on the matter. Good that you're going to sort this out. Ucucha 14:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I may be wrong, in the scientific literature it is consistently referred to as "Bridge's degu" (see for example), which is a little unexpected since the chap the species is named after is "Bridges".
 * Let's have a look - the Red List uses "Bridges's Degu", so does MSW 3 , Google books gives a few more for it , and one fewer for "Bridge's" , and even fewer for "Bridges'" . Google Scholar only gives a few for "Bridge's" . The scientific name is much more frequent , so we might even want to consider using Octodon bridgesi as the article title (see User:Ucucha/Titles). Which brings the number of possibilities up to seven. Ucucha 16:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for clearing up degu, particularly the refs, after I added maybe too many tags. I thought it was looking rotten, but clearly I was quite mistaken! innotata (Talk | Contribs) 18:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's no problem at all, it was my pleasure. It was basically all there, just needed the refs inserting really, and I added some interesting facts in the research section (degus are interesting little things!). Degutopia (talk) 09:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not to say that it is not still a rather poor article, in most respects. Can you add doi's, issn's, and suchlike? Otherwise there is little to improve as for the refs. The "rotten" above was in reference to the way nearly all the inline cits were to the same person, and the page's main contributor at that (– you). I'll look through the article closely later, and give you suggestions. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 01:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that "nearly all" is not true. I don't have a problem with citing your own peer-revie:::I may have taken this the wrong way, but I'm a bit offended by your last comment. While I would be happy to add the DOI's and ISSN numbers to all the refs, I completely disagree that "nearly all" the citations are to my work, in fact only three of the 35 references on the page are my work. The fact is I have worked hard to spruce up this article for the benefit of anyone wanting scientific references to degus because this is also what our website (Degutopia) is all about. Degutopia (talk) 11:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)wed work, but I think the reference to your website (currently nr. 35) is a bit dubious, as it is a self-published website that may not meet our reliable sources guideline (no offense to your work over there--we just have strict rules on this matter). Could you find other references to support that section? In general, I think it's best to try and use peer-reviewed publications as much as possible.
 * I also agree with Innotata that you should have some weblink to the articles you cite. I did that in Lundomys (at the request of a Featured Article reviewer) and it is helpful because it allows people to directly look at the articles you cite. You can also use dois, of course. Ucucha 12:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm currently in the middle of adding ISSN and DOI's where possible to the refs here. The only reason I included ref 35 the link to Degutopia's colour varieties section was because these genetic colour mutations are very recent and have not yet appeared in published literature, however we have been able to identify the genetics of said traits. If you would be happier if I removed this information from the page then so be it. Degutopia (talk) 12:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Great. I understand why you added the ref, but it wouldn't hurt to just wait until it has been peer-reviewed, would it? Ucucha 12:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As for the "nearly all," I meant formerly: I also didn't notice all of your peer-reviewed articles. And I do understand your desire to put info on the page that has not yet been published, but I'm not sure this is appropriate here. Don't worry, I think, and I think others agree, that degu is off to a good start. The style of the writing is one of the things that needs work: maybe I'll give it some. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 00:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Degu
Hello! Your submission of Degu at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Smartse (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)