User talk:FunkMonk/Archive 23

Tree of Life Newsletter



 * July 2019&mdash;Issue 004


 * Tree of Life


 * Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!

Discuss this issue

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) 18:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay
I already put the last image of basilosaurus in the article, Its been there for weeks now, and I already put the thing saying it is was outdated for as long as its been in the article, you dont have to bring it up--Bubblesorg (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What image? FunkMonk (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that Bubblesorg's referring to File:Pr00208.jpg. I'm not sure why this has been added to your talk page, seeing as you stated that it "can be excused and used as a historical example," FunkMonk. I posted it at WP:PALEOART for the sake of completeness and since it's missing an inaccurate paleoart tag. I don't think that anyone's arguing to remove it from the article. But, Bubblesorg, please keep these discussions on the pages they started on unless there's a really good reason to continue it elsewhere. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, most other users won't know that a discussion has suddenly been continued on a userpage. So keep discussion on project or article talk pages if they are relevant to those. FunkMonk (talk) 01:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

sure--Bubblesorg (talk) 01:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello!
Hello! Sorry for bothering. I've noticed your name in the list of the WP:FAC mentors. Recently, I have released a new article about Indonesian home gardens and I hope that it would be satisfactory to the standards of a featured article. However, I'm afraid that I've made major errors that I haven't noticed yet. If you have any time to give any advice or constructive criticism, comments in its peer review page would be appreciated. Thank you in advance! Dhio-270599 17:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not exactly my expertise area, but I'll give it a look. FunkMonk (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Did JP have any colours less extreme?
I'll leave it to you, but the page would be easier on the eye if we just picked two colours that fit into Wikipedia's colour scheme (e.g. calm colours, not a 1995 geocities webpage). Could a nice blue and a nice green be used and named after the possible colour of some key dinosaurs from the films? Or use a steely blue and a steely green like the logo for Jurassic World? Great floors (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Basilosaurus drazindai validity
B. drazindai ( Gingerich et al. 1997) was once considered to be a member of Basilosaurus and the oldest member of the genus, the only basilosaurus species found in Pakistan and England, this animal was said to of primitive nature. Only known from a few vertebre the species was questioned by many. Uhen, the guy who does the archeocete stuff, combined it with Eocetus. That seems to be the consensues on this site be a couple of days ago I got into a bit of a scrounge with an editor who said B.drazindai is still basilosaurus, the person and me were debating over the Eocetus. He handed this paper and although it does not mention anything about drazindai,it mentions things about eocetus, I cant get the full paper, only an abstract. So the question is, does drazindai deserve to a valid Basilosaurus species? Is Uhen alone in his beliefs? The paper is herehttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1464343X1530039X (is the editor valid)?--Bubblesorg (talk) 04:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know which Uhen paper you refer to, but he designates drazindai as a nomen dubium in Uhen 2013:
 * Because of the very limited and questionably diagnostic type specimens of each, the genus Basiloterus, and the species Basiloterus hussaini, and Basilosaurus drazindai are here designated nomina dubia, and identified as Basilosauridae indet. (pg. 5)
 * Also, please don't put words into my mouth. I said that drazindai is a separate species of Eocetus from E. schweinfurthi, following Gingerich and Zouhri. 2001:569:782B:7A00:C06B:BAF0:8378:A8F7 (talk) 05:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

oh sorry, i thought you said it was a valid species of basilosaurus, never mind--Bubblesorg (talk) 05:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As above, keep this kind of discussion on article talk pages, not under talk pages. FunkMonk (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The GA Review
I don't quite understand your note: Requesting opinion on how to deal with early history as fighting dog. As the nom, I realize my opinion must be dismissed but please allow me to clarify something that appears to have been lost because of the unnecessary disruption we have experienced. The Staffordshire Bull Terrier - the modern purebred breed of dog that is recognized by AKC, KC, CKC, and numerous other reputable kennel clubs around the world, are far removed from the fighting dogs of the 1800s. The evolution of the modern Staffie represents multiple decades of effort to perfect the breed - document it, develop a breed standard, and eliminate the undesirable traits of their ancesters, including looks and temperament. The breed has evolved from some mixed terrier x bulldog cross of unknown origins to a documented, purebred dog whose lineage can be traced back several generations - none of which were documented as fighting dogs, all of which was crossbred out of the lineage. Let's say that your DNA traces back to Celts and Vikings of the 17th & 18th centuries. How would we deal with the early history of your BLP? Would we use SYNTH to make it appear that because your ancestors were Viking warriors, you should be subject to DNA specific legislation and be banned from living in certain communities? Let's look at the American Quarter Horse which originated from centuries-old crosses of Arabian horses, Spanish horses, and English-bred horses. They have evolved to fit a distinct purpose, but they still have ears, tails, hooves and eat hay just like their ancestors did. Every now and then, you may see a Quarter Horse with a beautiful dished nose like that of an Arabian, but decades of responsible breeding for a distinct purpose changes things. Atsme Talk 📧 18:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, don't get me wrong, I think what has happened to the article is a huge mess, but I requested that second opinion for two reasons: 1, to make it clear to everyone when it passes that more than one reviewer has agreed it should pass (which will hopefully prevent too much whining after the fact, as it has not been an unilateral decision), and 2, because I am unsure from both the talk page and the article itself whether this breed itself, not just its ancestors, has been used as fighting dogs. Opinions seem to be divided on the talk page, so hopefully a second reviewer will help with putting a final nail in the coffin to this issue, and show to the dissenters on the talk page that every step has been taken to keep the article neutral. It is extremely rare that GAN reviews are this controversial, which is why I'm taking these steps; I fear the article would just become a fighting ground afterwards if things are finished too hastily. FunkMonk (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Makes perfect sense...thank you! Atsme Talk 📧 21:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Kosmoceratops
As someone who isn't an expert in paleontology or dinosaurs, this article was incredibly dense and difficult to comprehend. I fear it may be similarly hard to understand for the average reader. The article incorporated many studies/journal articles. It also used a plethora of technical terms. (Even though they were defined/explained, the article overall was still hard to comprehend.) I do not know the standard among Wikipedia's dinosaur articles, but the and  templates may be appropriate for this article. Alternatively, feel free to try to replace jargon with more common terms and cut down on some of lengthy paragraphs, especially those regarding the studies. Best of luck with the article. —Bobbychan193 (talk) 23:48, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the copy edit, looks good! In general, technical terms and concepts are explained in parenthesis or similar, and I have nothing against adding more of that if something is unclear. Any particular examples I could go over? Also, such issues are usually brought up by FAC reviewers, so it is routine that I add more explanation or simplify things then. FunkMonk (talk) 23:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It would be better to wait for experienced FAC reviewers then. It was just constructive feedback and a friendly heads up for your benefit. —Bobbychan193 (talk) 00:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but feel free to point out if something is particularly irksome. It can be hard to know when one is too immersed in the subject already. FunkMonk (talk) 00:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the Paleobiology and Paleoenvironment sections (the latter especially) gave me a lot of trouble. An example of a specific sentence: All elements were dominated by densely vascularized tissue, indicating sustained rapid growth that is also confirmed by radially oriented vascular canals and dense osteocytes throughout their development. This sentence and a lot of the sentences regarding various scientists' findings were all lengthy and hard to understand without re-reading them. My suggestion would be to restructure the scientists' findings. Instead of having all of the findings and arguments laid out chronologically, they could be grouped into "camps" of thought (as a lot of them disagreed with each other's findings). Within each "camp" section, you could order the findings chronologically, or you could put the most important stuff earlier. (In my opinion, the order in which the studies were published, or the years that they were released, or even the scholars involved, aren't as important as the ideas they manifest. The average reader would probably care most about broad ideas, and the article should be structured in a way that conveys these ideas as straightforwardly as possible.) Hope this helps. Bobbychan193 (talk) 00:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's still under GA review, so I'll also try to bring this up with the reviewer. FunkMonk (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with this one. What about "The bone tissue had a high number of osteocytes (bone cells) as well as a dense network of blood vessels, including radially oriented vascular canals (blood canals running towards the bone interior), indicating sustained rapid growth"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Took the suggestion. I am doing some other minor fixes to prevent ambiguities and such, and I'm not sure about that bulleted list that was introduced: WP:Embedded lists seems to advise against them in cases like this. FunkMonk (talk) 03:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kosmoceratops
The article Kosmoceratops you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Kosmoceratops 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) 22:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Google books links
Regarding your claim that Google books links are unstable, are you sure you're not thinking of Google search results? I've worked with such links for a number of years and the only "instability" I've encountered is that you may receive a notice that you have reached your limit for looking within that particular book (which is a temporary, ip-specific outcome that is not problematic in the context of Wikipedia article citations). All the links I've created to a specific page in a specific book have been stable, in my experience, and I have a hard time seeing the logic of why such a link would give different results in different countries. Has your experience been different? WolfmanSF (talk) 05:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is just how it works, see Google Books under details. What regular readers get is usually just what's under preview and snippet view, even for public domain works. In my experience, and that of others here, what you see one moment can change the next. Archive.org is always the same. FunkMonk (talk) 02:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As I've pointed out, I'm pretty familiar the subject, probably more so than you are. That's not how it works. Following are 12 Google Books links I just pulled up that I have used in the past, together with the date I added them to an article (and the links to those edits). On my end, all these links still work, and I suspect they'll work for you as well. No not all Google Books links are stable, just like little else in the internet is completely stable. However, the idea that Google Books links are so untrustworthy as not to be useful is absurd. They have been far more stable than IUCN links, which we use constantly. Given that the Archive.org links in question don't link to the relevant content, while the Google Books links do, there is no rational justification for substituting the former for the latter. WolfmanSF (talk) 03:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Again, if you always check from the same country, you will not get the same result as me necessarily who lives in another country. For example, the very first link you sent only shows me a book I can't access (this goes for a couple of others as well). But anyway, this isn't a personal issue for me, it is a general issue, see these long, past discussions about it: So the take home message is, Google Books links decay over time and show different things in different countries, the latter point which I doubt your above survey accounts for. Archive.org doesn't. So there is absolutely no reason at all to replace Archive.org links with Google Book links. If the Archive.org links don't link to the exact pages, just change the links. FunkMonk (talk) 03:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please humor me and check all the links. The first link is for a book that has no preview, so your result is the same as mine. What about the others? Thus far, I have seen no evidence that either of your claims is true.
 * By the way, the statements made in both discussions that Google Books links are unstable were largely debunked by other editors, so neither of those discussions supports your position. Another editor made the comment "I am beginning to think that the people who are opposed to deep links are the ones who are simply unfamiliar with the way that Google Books works." That may be spot on. WolfmanSF (talk) 06:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Why show me a link that no one can check then? To "humor" me? This link doesn't work either: This link doesn't show large page ranges: And that's just from a cursory look. In any case, you have not explained why it is necessary to change to Google Books links rather than correct the supposedly incorrect page links at Archive.org. Seems rather pointless, but I'm all ears. FunkMonk (talk) 06:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

TFA
Thank you today for Paraceratherium, "the largest land mammal that has ever lived. The article was in a sorry state before, but luckily the first semi-technical book devoted to this animal was published last year, which synthesised a lot of obscure information, and is the main basis for this article."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Welcome, I even forgot it was on today! FunkMonk (talk) 19:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Commons
I screwed-up the ping so instead of redoing it, I'll just point you to this. Thanks in advance! Atsme Talk 📧 13:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019 Tree of Life Newsletter



 * August 2019&mdash;Issue 005


 * Tree of Life


 * Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!



Discuss this issue

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) at 15:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 5
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited St. Croix macaw, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trochlea ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/St._Croix_macaw check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/St._Croix_macaw?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I have changed a few dinosaur taxa extinction dates
I changed the Kpg to its More accurate 66.043, can you help me out with maastrichtian fauna changing, thanks :D--Bubblesorg (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You are doing a lot of serial edits these days without discussing first, and a lot of people are getting annoyed. Please do as I told you long ago and discuss proposed controversial changes on article talk pages (not editor talk pages) before implementing them. FunkMonk (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

okay--Bubblesorg (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC) sorry I will revert them--Bubblesorg (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Tahiti rail scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for September 13, 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 Today's featured article/September 13, 2019. Thanks!—Wehwalt (talk) 05:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok! FunkMonk (talk) 07:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the "bird known from little else than an 18th century drawing"! - Also on the Main page: Clara Schumann, - I decorated my talk ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Almost contemporaries! FunkMonk (talk) 10:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Mandate
Hi FunkMonk, thanks again for your support on the Mandate article. After you promoted it, the bot hasn’t done anything - is there anything else i need to do? Onceinawhile (talk) 06:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, probably just a temporary glitch. If nothing happens today, I think we can make a notice on the GAN talk page. FunkMonk (talk) 06:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Rodrigues solitaire scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Rodrigues solitaire article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 28, 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 Today's featured article/October 28, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted on or after October 1, 2018, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors up to the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me?  09:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok! FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Staffie
Whilst you are enjoying the first hints of the northern autumn, I have added my minor contribution to the Staffie article and believe that we are just about ready for the awarding of a GA status - let us wait until the 20th as Atsme has asked and see who else may have an opinion. Was their lineage developed for fighting? Nobody really knows where these dogs originated from nor their purpose, there is that much breed club myth surrounding them like mist that you can almost cut it with a knife. So, we run with what we have. I am sure that you will be glad to see the end of this "tail". Now, back to my wolves.......... William Harris talk  11:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, good to see some movement on this, I felt like I couldn't close it without at least showing that all voices have been heard... Then few can complain after it has been promoted; they had their (long) chance. FunkMonk (talk) 12:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, the deadline for feedback has finished (20th), and the time has come for the assessor to decide if the GA is deserved. Then you can get back to your "normal life"! :-)  William Harris Canis lupis track.svg talk Canis lupis track.svg 22:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'll leave a comment to see if anyone has further things to say before... FunkMonk (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 Tree of Life Newsletter



 * September 2019&mdash;Issue 006


 * Tree of Life


 * Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!



Discuss this issue

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) at 22:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Wolf peer review
Hey. Are you up for taking a quick look at wolf? LittleJerry (talk) 02:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep, not sure how quick it'll be, though, might be good to be thorough already at this stage. FunkMonk (talk) 08:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Question
here is the source I found for troodon vetebre and eggs at the judith river formation http://theropoddatabase.com/Troodontidae.htm#Troodonformosus, what do you think?--Bubblesorg (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You should look closer at the sources that page cites, though, that's what we should use. In any case, you can't assign eggs to a taxon only known from teeth, so it is hardly considered probable anymore. FunkMonk (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I see--Bubblesorg (talk) 02:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Any problems with the Alphadon page
I have some pictures I took of an alphadon fossil at the Burke museum today. Do you have advice on where to include them --Bubblesorg (talk) 02:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In the Alphadon article, I'd assume? The fossil could be shown in the taxobox and the model moved to description. FunkMonk (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Proof
Okay so you say dromeosaur (whatever hes name is) and edaphosaurus is me. However lets take this into considration, Starting with dromeo, hes account dates back to 2010, im 14-15 years old (not giving my real age for security reasons), I would have been 5-6 years old when dromeosaur was on this site. Considering i did not know how to create a wikipedia acount till 2018 and I lived in Singapore and dromeosaur seems to have lived in America, what are the odds. Next edaphosaurus, a user whos account dates back to 2014. Now given the fact I lived in Chicago at the time and I was 10 year old with adhd who was more concerend about godzilla, again what are the odds. Oh and final, his last edits seem to be 2017 (forgive me if I am wrong), I was active only a year later in 2018. Another thing Edaphosaurus may live in washington, but the population of that state is around 7.58, and the odds are stacked against him being me. The Ip as you and fanboyphil have stated is from canada and is unlikely to be me. So given all this evidence, what do you have to say? Or do we ditch all this information. I mean I am pretty big on privacy and I have given you this information, so I mean I am not just tossing it lightly--Bubblesorg (talk) 16:42, 14 October 2019 (UTC) @FunkMonk What do you have to say?--Bubblesorg (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It is just a claim, saying you are a specific age isn't proof itself. FunkMonk (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * FunkMonk, if you want to start an SPI I won't stop you, but just know that the mysterious 2001 IP turned out to be Lythronaxargestes. I don't want to sustain unwarranted accusations on Bubblesorg since I just recently was involved in a major one which completely fell flat. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 00:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In any case, my main problem isn't the socks, but the edits... FunkMonk (talk) 05:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I agree with your frustration on that front. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)