User talk:Ucucha/Archive11

DYK for Eastern harvest mouse

 * A "short, slender tail"--you are adding poetry to science! Bravo! Careful that Materialscientist doesn't haul you off to WP:ANI for POV edits. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, a "dainty little creature"! Even better! I am so proud of you. But now you have to explain why you don't put periods at the end of your citations. I mean, "^a b Kurtén 240" looks so...naked... Drmies (talk) 02:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Blame the bot, I didn't write this. did (and she also wrote a number of other great U.S. rodent articles, such as the eastern chipmunk some way up here). Ucucha 02:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have the feeling she's a lot cuter than you, and more inclined to poetry and red wine. I could be wrong. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, I did something to one of your rats. Ha, one article actually says it was more like a mouse. Can't they keep themselves straight? Now it is time for you to do your "science thing" to the Key Largo Woodrat, a darling creature. I did the citations the way I always do them, since a. I'm comfortable with it and b. there's some templated reference in there already. One thing: one of the articles counted 650 in the late 1970s or early 1980s, but the article already claimed 6,500 (possible five years or more later), which I saw repeated in the article from (I believe) the Seattle PI. Phew. Poor animal! And it's a homely beast too! Drmies (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw it&mdash;I of course have every rodent article on Wikipedia on my watchlist. I did a little bit of research on that guy when I was writing Mammals of the Caribbean and subpages. There is a delightful book on the mammals of the Florida Keys that I read then. Apparently, it is just stupid European imperialism that American mule and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus) are placed in a different genus than European fallow deer (Dama), so the Americans should also be placed in Dama. I added a bit to the woodrat page and will add more from the refs I added (JSTOR is wonderful), but not today. It's already DYK eligible, I noticed. Ucucha 04:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, if you think three square miles is a small distribution, you haven't heard of Melomys rubicola. Ucucha 04:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

<--The way I went about adding to this creature is not the right way--going through the News archives and then basically reconstructing the story. It works for establishing notability for minor bands and such, but here is a slightly bigger story; I could have saved some time halfway through by searching for Port Bougainville in Google Books, for instance, and that might have made for a much more elegant text. At any rate, I was happy to find a human interest in one of these critters, and now I feel quite attached to it. Maybe I'll name my capybara for [|Larry Lawrence. Ha, that note about the stick nests, that was cool. [[User:Drmies|Drmies]] (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, it's highly hokey, and therefore it might be just right for a hook: . Drmies (talk) 05:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Might be. It is funny, at least. I'll see whether I can find something better in my chunk of journal articles. Ucucha 13:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's something related to this discussion I thought I'd ask you. Should there be a page, dab or otherwise on harvest mice? At eastern harvest mouse, there is a thing about it being "the only harvest mouse in most of its range", linking of course to Micromys minutus. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, and there is that new species of Micromys from Vietnam or somewhere therabout. Is it a valid species? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Micromys erythrotis from Vietnam and southern China is a valid species. Other Micromys, ranging from Japan to western Europe, are remarkably similar, though.
 * "Harvest mouse" should probably be a dab page; the term is as commonly applied to Micromys as to Reithrodontomys. If anything, Reithrodontomys is the primary topic. I couldn't find any other rodents called "harvest mice" in a quick search through Google Scholar. Ucucha 18:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This taxonomy business, it gets to be a bit racialist sometimes. I'm sure you all are aware of this hot-button issue. Can't we all just get along? Drmies (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Never heard of the issue of copyrighting "catfish" and "sardine". Surely "January 16" must be a typo for "April 1"? Catfish are an entire order, and sardines are found in nearly every part of the world, including Australia's driest deserts. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It was a huge issue in Alabama as well, since Vietnamese catfish (or "catfish") is/was much cheaper. Check out these hits to see just how big, and click on "Archives" if you need more. BTW, Congress agreed with the renaming! Now, one can biologize all one wants, but money rules. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Category
I was a bit surprised that there's no. There is one for the IUCN list. Is a US list redundant one way or another? Is our woodrat on the IUCN list? If an animal is on one, are they also on the other? I didn't find that info on IUCN Red List. Drmies (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They are different lists, with largely different categories (see the relevant pages: the U.S. list has two categories, Endangered and Threatened; the IUCN Red List has many more). Why don't we have a category for the U.S. list? Probably because no one bothered to make one. Our woodrat is U.S. ESA Endangered, but it is not on the IUCN list (though it probably was a few years ago&mdash;I believe the IUCN has recently been kicking subspecies off their list). Ucucha 20:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Spring break?
Are you saying "no thanks" to this? You know the water there is as warm now as the North Sea in summer, right? Hey, great work on the pictures. It is a really cute creature. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 05:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In a place where even the woodrats are snobs? Thanks but no thanks on that bridge (where does it even go?).
 * I am actually surprised how many images we can get from that nice US federal government so easily. If you want to, there's a couple more here, more here (even a rice rat!). There's some work to do there. The rice rat is here now, at least. Ucucha 05:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sarah Brown move request
You have recently participated in a discussion about moving Sarah Brown (spouse). The request has been modified so please revisit it here for further discussion if you care. —  AjaxSmack   02:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good to see that the discussion is moving to a more specific proposal. I have no opinion on the merits. Ucucha 02:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither do I except for opposition to the current title. On another subject, I like the text of your talkpage edit notice.  Could I use it or some variant of it?  —   AjaxSmack   02:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course. It's at User talk:Ucucha/Editnotice (though you'd probably find that yourself). Ucucha 02:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! —   AjaxSmack   05:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Schwa
Hello,

A while back you offered some helpful suggestions for Schwa (restaurant). After a good deal of additional work, I plan on submitting it for GA status within the next day or two, and am hopeful that it can reach FA status in the future. Any additional comments you have would be helpful, as I have only been involved with GA a few times and have not yet ventured in FA territory.

Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 03:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good, I see there's been quite some improvement since I reviewed it. From a quick look, it appears to be pretty close to GA quality already. I'd be happy to help out when it gets to FAC and to review the article again before it gets there. Ucucha 03:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Flag of Japan/archive3
I am still pretty new to alt text, so I know how to place them in the article, but I am not sure if what I wrote was good enough. I took some suggestions from Alternative_text_for_images and I hope this is what you are looking for. I also did replace the dead link with a new book cite. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look tomorrow, as I said at the FAC. Ucucha 04:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That is fine, but just letting you know that I am trying to take some proactive measures. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

21st Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry
Thanks very much for your comments on the 21st article. This is the first time I've done the FAC process and I fear I've botched it already, so I'm hoping you might be able to point a newbie like me in the right direction. On the 21st's talk page, I thought I had pasted the subst:FAC template as directed, but now it is no longer there...I must have failed to save the page. So, now what? Will pasting it again initiate a new FAC nomination? I don't think I want to do that. Needless to say, I feel a bit dumb about this. Any suggestion would be appreciated. Historical Perspective (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you!! Historical Perspective (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad I was able to help. Good luck at the FAC! I'll probably not be able to do a full review, though as a Massuchetts resident I perhaps should. I did post a small question on the FAC. Ucucha 18:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reviews
As you noticed, I have passed one of your articles nominated as a GAC. I have about 2 hours left before work today, so I will try to do as many of the others as I can. If you have time&mdash;and I say that because I know this is a beast&mdash;would you be able to get the ball rolling on my article in the GAC queue, Illegal logging in Madagascar? If not, don't sweat it. I was just needing a break from writing today. –  VisionHolder  « talk »  19:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. GA noms can last a long time, so I'm happy that these ones are moving so fast. :) Would you mind leaving Oecomys sydandersoni out for a bit, since I have yet to make a distribution map for it? I might get to that this weekend. I might do the review for the logging article (certainly an important topic to educate people about), if I can find time&mdash;I have lots of Wikipedia-related things to do, and would like to help as many people as I can but am not always able to. Ucucha 20:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was writing a response to your comments at Talk:Trachylepis tschudii/GA1, but could as well do it here as the same issues apply to each of the articles I nominated. I prefer not to use citation templates, because they make it more difficult to edit, especially if I need more complex citations than regular journal articles (as I regularly do). ISBNs can be easily added without templates, just by adding ISBN xxxx after the citation. ISSN aren't used that much, so will just be useless numbers for most readers, and most articles are linked anyway (the one in T. tschudii that isn't appears to lack an ISSN). Ucucha 20:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's just a personal preference, so just ignore the recommendation then. I just passed Ekbletomys, although one sentence needs patched up (mentioned on Talk:Ekbletomys/GA1.  Also, please see if you're okay with my changes.  Otherwise, I've got to get ready for work now. –   VisionHolder  « talk »  21:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I replied there; I don't see the problem you see. I'll have a look at your changes. Ucucha 21:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hook
That is a gorgeous hook. Actually, what kept me from writing a hook like that (besides my verbosity) was that I remembered seeing that DYK discouraged the use of direct quotes, like quotes from critics about books or albums, for instance. Anyway, nicely done. About the rat: I would have written some of these sections, but that's the kind of thing that will take you two minutes and me an hour. And I left you a bare URL to clean up as well. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They are fairly regularly used nowadays. Why didn't you add a picture, by the way? I think it would make a good (and exceptionally brief, if mine is used) lead hook. Ucucha 01:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Cause I'm an idiot, and I rarely write articles that have pictures--and because I am very, very sleepy. I could only manage three Jip and Janneke stories tonight. BTW, Annie M.G. Schmidt was a gender bender already in the 1950s and 1960s: Janneke says that girls can be train conductors also, and mother agrees--so Jip gives her the "spiegelei" and the whistle. I had a hard time explaining to my daughter what that "kniptang" was for. Will you add it please? The one you put up here will work nicely, since the critter looks so cute and small. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good. I also made sure I'd get a nice template for this one and forever associated you with that piece you were too ashamed of to sign . Annie has more interesting things to say than just Jip-en-Janneke-taal (though I can't quite see the connection between the conductor and the kniptang). Ucucha 02:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Jip is de chef"--as in the old-fashioned "stationschef." Before your time, probably. That's why he has the red hat (I think train conductors in the old days had blue hats) and the spiegelei. But he's also the conductor, hence the kniptang--or are you really saying that you don't know about the old treinkaartjes, that they would "knip" a hole in? Tempus fugit... BTW, I once had an "Annie" DYK. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I do, but didn't make the connection with the kniptang. I am too young to know about the real "knip", yes&mdash;vita brevis. Ucucha 04:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your RfA Support
User: - Thanks for your participation and support in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 09:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Two quick questions
First, how did you keep the italicized title for article Banksia acanthopoda‎ when you removed Template:Italic title? (In other words, is there a more proper way to do this?) Also, how did you add your "Attention" box to the editing window on your talk page? –  VisionHolder  « talk »  04:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Taxobox does this automatically when the |name= parameter is not filled in and the value of the |binomial= parameter is equal to  (or something like that; try to decipher the parser functions in Taxobox name if you want to know more).
 * The box is at User talk:Ucucha/Editnotice. You can add it to your page by creating at User talk:Visionholder/Editnotice.
 * Now I'm here anyway, I'll note that I'm just now completing the FAC nomination for Noronha skink at Featured article candidates/Noronha skink/archive1. Any comments from people who chance to come by here are welcome. Ucucha 04:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. I will try to figure out #1.  I will also try to take a look at Noronha skink, but I just started on evaluating GACs, so getting overly involved in FACs should probably wait just a little bit.  Anyway, I've got my hands full with 1) the Gray Mouse Lemur FAC, 2) soliciting help for a GAC review of Illegal logging in Madagascar (which I want to send straight to FAC next, if appropriate), and 3) the Lemur re-write I've been working on for over 6 months.  If I can, I'll poke my nose in.  Good luck! –   VisionHolder  « talk »  05:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem there; I know you're busy. I was just pasting the little skink in as I was busy with it while I read this and wanted to put it here anyway. Ucucha 05:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Darn... just realized that for extinct species, if you have a "†" in the binomial value (or genus value, for genera), then you have to use the Template:Italic title. Oh well... now I know.  Thanks! –   VisionHolder  « talk »  05:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Move
Interesting - the Indonesian military article - there is no sign that it was mentioned at the WP Indonesia project - and the comments by the active Indonesian project members commenting there suggest that there was an even balance between the two - some moves in the Indonesian project take up to months for adequate response - that is the quickest I have seen and knowing most of the eds who have made comment - I suspect the close was just a tad quick - the Indonesian project is a very slow to respond beast, if it had been adequately notified SatuSuro 14:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The move had been open for the required seven days. Anyway, the opposers suggested Indonesian National Military was the appropriate title, not Indonesian National Armed Forces, so you can always start another RM to suggest a move to that page. Ucucha 14:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In the end the adequate provision of redirects is, imho the most important part of the process SatuSuro 14:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. I just created the one for Indonesian National Military; feel free to create any other plausible ones. When moving the article, I noticed that there was a redirect at Military of Jakarta, which seemed odd. Might be something that needs a retargeting or RFD discussion. Ucucha 14:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You wouldnt believe some of the weird and wonderful stuff we have wandering into the project - Im just gonna watch at this stage ...SatuSuro 14:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Why was Hellfire Club, Dublin moved?
Requirement for move is the consensus be reached. One person proposed, another opposed. Another only supported the move if it could be demonstrated that Montpelier Hill was notable. This was not done. I do not call this consensus. Move the article back please. --Joe King (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Skinsmoke also supported; you seem to have missed him. Ucucha 14:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 2 votes to 1 does not represent consenus per WP:Consensus. Change it back NOW. --Joe King (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement for a certain ratio of votes needed for consensus to be reached. Assessing consensus in discussions like this one is my job as an admin; I assessed the consensus to be in favor of moving. The proposer and you both made reasonable arguments, but the proposer's arguments were convincing to more people. Ucucha 14:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Your assessment is wrong. There are two votes in favour (including vote by proposer), one against and one who agreed only if the Montpelier name met WP:Notability which was not demonstrated by the proposer. Consensus as per WP:Consensus was not reached. --Joe King (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please be more specific in citing WP:Consensus; I can't see specifically where that page supports your argument. Ucucha 14:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Blind mole rats
Are the blind mole rats actually called this? I can't find anything about this since I've only got books translated from Russian on the subject at the moment. They probably should be at Spalax regardless, and the recording company probably just merits a hatnote. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My oldest daughter likes Naked Mole Rat Gets Dressed, but I don't know if that's available in Russian. Willems's mole rat, Wilbur, is a lot better looking than "our" naked mole rat. That is not a pretty creature. Drmies (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding naked mole rats... in the natural history museum here we have some jars of fluid-preserved naked mole rats. Looks really nice.
 * "Blind mole rat" is used by Encyclopaedia Britannica (which actually uses an image from Wikipedia, the one you put right next to this thread). Google Scholar also shows quite some uses for "blind mole rat" in reference to Spalax (and more specifically, mostly to Spalax ehrenbergi). "Fossorial mole rat" and "subterranean mole rat" also seem to be in use. Perhaps it's indeed best to put Spalax under the scientific name to avoid confusion. Ucucha 23:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. The image is one of a three rather nice images of mole rats, the articles for which and Spalax I think I'll try to expand soon, mostly using Topachevskii's issue of Fauna of the USSR. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 00:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good luck. There's quite a bit of taxonomic uncertainty there, though, particularly in the ehrenbergi-leucodon-nehringi bunch ("Nannospalax", I think Topachevsky calls those "Microspalax"). There's basically a new karyotypic morph every few hundred kilometers (or less) and it doesn't seem unlikely that every one of those is a separate species. That's where the four species recently described from Israel (galili, golani, judaei, and carmeli) come from, as well as a few new ones recently described from Turkey (tuncelicus and munzuri). There are probably also four species in Jordan, not yet described, and lots in Turkey. The others (true Spalax) are more karyotypically conservative and otherwise taxonomically manageable, though there are some uncertainties. Ucucha 01:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope MSW3 will mostly be enough. In any case, I'll work on the genus (family to Topachëvskiĭ) article and the fossil Prospalax first, where the taxonomy is unlikely to have changed. But I also have a few sparrow articles, chipmunks, whitefishes, I want to improve the articles for and so on. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We're getting ever weirder versions of Mr. Topa...'s name. Prospalax is a member of Anomalomyidae, not Spalacinae; don't you mean Pliospalax? There are a few other fossil spalacine genera: Debruijnia, Sinapospalax, and Heramys. Ucucha 20:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I wonder where I can find out how exactly those old fossils are classified. With birds you just have to look at these checklists of fossils by continent. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you can't, or you'll have to read lots of specialistic papers. There is no one good classification of fossil muroids. There's a couple of papers I can send you about it, but it's messy and you'll have to basically sort out much of the classification yourself. Ucucha 21:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't really think there would be. I'll probably just follow the taxonomy of whatever papers I find (and I haven't made my e-mail available yet, nor am I sure I want to or that it would be of much use, since I can't always download PDF files and I don't want to get a new address for certain reasons et cetera) . Pliospalax is covered, though in not so much detail; Topachevskii hints at "rabbit-like" relatives of Prospalax, presumably the other members of today's Anomalomyidae, but details are lost in the Indian translation. I think I'll work only on the genus article until I (if I ever) make head or tail of this. Any splits would not make the genus information in Topachëvskiĭ (I believe this is the most precise rendition of the Cyrillic, though I'm not sure his name includes an umalaut like Gorbachëv: they usually are omitted, as explained at yo) and other old sources less useful. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Anomalomyids are also considered to be burrowers, like living spalacids; I wouldn't consider them "rabbit-like" on that basis. He might also have meant Argyromys, Tachyoryctoides, and friends, which are sometimes considered close to spalacines. Good luck on Spalax itself; I might try and put something together on a few fossils if I have time.
 * You seem to be using either ALA-LC or British standard transliteration for Вадім Александровіч Топачевскій, according to Romanization of Russian. Ucucha 00:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Yes, I must be useing the British standard transliteration. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)