User talk:Ucucha/Archive20

DYK for Nesomys narindaensis
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 06:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Brachytarsomys mahajambaensis
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 06:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Scammers
Here's a book I'm sure you'd like to read... Sasata (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Great book to be sure. They even got an ISBN (ISBN 1155900499). The best part of the deal is that you get "free access to book updates online" when you buy it. Ucucha 17:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Nitpicky question
Regarding this one, do we have a policy about hyphenation when it forms part of a book title? Looking at the book now, that's definitely a hyphen in the title and not an en-dash; is this one of those issues where the MOS trumps the "official version"? (I've no strong opinion either way—having watched with appalled fascination the "the original used the long-s!" drama, I've no intention of arguing over dashes—but just for future reference.) – iride  scent  19:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I always thought MOS said that dash styling should be corrected, even when the original uses a wrong style, but WP:MOSQUOTE doesn't seem to say that explicitly. On the other hand, we are explicitly allowed to changed spaced en dashes to unspaced em dashes and vice versa, and it would be strange if we could do that and not correct other aspects of dash styling. Perhaps it's worth asking for clarification at WT:MOS, since I often make these changes (most usually in web page titles with spaced hyphens instead of en dashes). Ucucha 19:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Trust me, I'm not losing sleep—it's just that there are a lot more of these to come (4 down, 59 to go), all of which will include that book as either part of the bibliography or further reading, so I may as well be consistent. – iride  scent  20:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither do I. However, we have to do it one way or the other, and even better if we have good reasons to do it one way or the other. Ucucha 20:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Cryptoprocta spelea
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 12:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Hipposideros besaoka
Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Triaenops goodmani
Hi, I am reviewing your GA nomination and have left a few comments at Talk:Triaenops goodmani/GA1. Thanks, Xtzou ( Talk ) 15:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, responded there. I would see it on my watchlist if you start a GA review (both because I have WP:Good article nominations/Topic lists/Natural sciences watchlisted and because I would see it on my watchlist when GA bot transcludes the GA review), so your posts here are appreciated but not necessary. Ucucha 16:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

FAC Mark Steel's in Town
Thanks for responding. As there is no article for "Theatre Royal, Dumfries" I've removed the link. ISD (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Already responded at the FAC; I watch FACs I comment on. Ucucha 16:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Glyptemys
Hello again, I am currently working on the Glyptemys genus article. Initially, I had trouble deciding what should be put into the article (considering it's not a specific species or anything). I was told by User:SunCreator to follow one of your works (Oryzomys), which has helped to a degree. Would you mind checking over my work and seeing if I'm heading in the right direction? Feel free to take stuff out/tear the article apart...I just want it to be as informative and correctly formatted as possible. Thank you!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not doing more on the wood turtle—I've been distracted with too many other articles, and you seemed to be doing fine without my help.
 * Oryzomys is perhaps not directly comparable to Glyptemys, because it's about a fairly diverse genus, not one with only two species. You might want to look at some of Jimfbleak's swallow and other bird articles (chough, Delichon, river martin, crag martin), which are smaller genera. I'll also work on Transandinomys (two species) soon.
 * I think the main problem with Glyptemys is that it rarely tells about the genus, but rather goes from one species to the other and back. I tried to integrate it more in Oryzomys, and I think you should to. For example, you currently have a sentence saying bog turtles hibernate from late September to March or April and another, two paragraphs down, saying wood turtles hibernate from November to February or March. I would instead say something like "Both species of Glyptemys hibernate, the bog turtle from late September to March or April and the wood turtle from November to February or March." I do not think the separate sections "Wood turtle" and "Bog turtle" should be in the article at all. Ucucha 19:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'll move some things around as per your advice and will check out the other articles. Thanks again.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Triaenops menamena
Mifter (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Fossa (animal)
Materialscientist (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

GA review of Hipposideros besaoka
Hello, I'll be reviewing Hipposideros besaoka for GA status. Here's the review link: Talk:Hipposideros besaoka/GA1. Airplaneman  ✈  19:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I'll try to address any comments as soon as possible. Ucucha 04:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Passed! Airplaneman  ✈  19:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Subfossil stuff
Thanks for the quick assessment of Subfossil lemur! I apologize, but my girlfriend pulled me away from my computer tonight, so I haven't had time to contribute to the list of subfossil sites. I plan to work on that tomorrow night. My apologies. –  VisionHolder  « talk »  05:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. I am going through the article copyediting now, and will leave some comments on the talk page. Ucucha 05:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just keep in mind that it's a very rough draft... I'm not even sure if I've proofread large chunks of it yet. Anyway, as always, I appreciate your help.  –   VisionHolder  « talk »  05:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing too bad, and it is interesting. Ucucha 06:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Paratriaenops auritus
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 18:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Jelle Zijlstra
According to the Official Parliamentary Biography he was from June 25, 1963 until November 22, 1966

--Mike-Kerkhoven (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite true; sorry for forgetting about that. Ucucha 18:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit requests
Today's featured article/June 6, 2010, Today's featured article/June 7, 2010, Today's featured article/June 8, 2010 – The Open Boat needs quotation marks around it in each. Today's featured article/June 13, 2010 – Mycena haematopus needs to be italicized. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. By the way, those for June 6–8 aren't in fact protected. Ucucha 05:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

James G. Howes
Please take a look at this. Just wrote it and nom'd for DYK. Please copyedit, reorganize, etc as you see fit. — Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 17:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not—interesting man. Perhaps the article should be a bit more chronologically organized. Ucucha 18:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've debated on reorganizing it but am not sure how is best. Thanks for helping.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 18:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * JC just did a great reorg of it. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 00:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Was beginning to lose my cool there.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I can understand it—lots of unnecessary hyperbole in the sections above that one. Ucucha 19:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice metaphor about the scavenger hunt, by the way—a candidate for an entry at WP:NOT? It's very true that "Wikipedia is not a scavenger hunt", and I've seen many people at FAC say similar things: articles should, to a certain extent, be self-contained, and readers shouldn't have to read lots of other articles to understand them. Ucucha 19:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe. Let me read NOT over and maybe compose something decent.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Subfossil sites
I have merged the two lists in your sandbox, but some work is still needed. Several things are not certain. Tomorrow, I will email Dr. Laurie Godfrey and see if she has time to look over the list. I have added refs to all the names of new sites added to the list, and my coordinates are linked to external sources that map towns, given that my sources don't give coordinates. If I couldn't find anything on any external source, I used Google Earth to approximate the location based on the 3 maps that I have. If you want to remove stuff to publish the page, please place my "notes" in comments so I can have something to work off of if necessary. –  VisionHolder  « talk »  03:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll continue work myself soon. I don't think we need to be in a hurry to publish it. Ucucha 06:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

GA Bot at BRFA
Hello. Just letting you know that I've filed a request at WP:BRFA for the bot described at your bot request. See Bots/Requests for approval/Good Article Patrol Bot. Thanks, Robert Skyhawk (T C B) 03:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Maria Theresa of Austria
Greetings, Ucucha! I've been trying to improve the article about Maria Theresa of Austria for the last few months. I've noticed that you review FA candidates and that you've created several FAs yourself. I'd appreciate if you could take a look at the article and give me some feedback. The article is currently at GA status and I've been thinking about nominating it for FA. When you find time, could you give me an advice on how to improve it? Thanks in advance, Surtsicna (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC) I forgot to inform you that English is not my first language, so prose is my main concern. I have also asked User:Yllosubmarine for comments. Surtsicna (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll go through the article and see whether I spot any problems (but note that English is not my first language either!). It's not part of the subject matter I usually write on, but it's an interesting subject.
 * One thing I saw in the lead: you make WP:EASTEREGG links to Marie Antoinette and a few others. Those should be avoided; perhaps you can say something like "She had sixteen children, including a queen of France (Marie Antoinette), ..." Ucucha 17:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You should be consistent in placing refs before or after punctuation and in using or not using the serial comma. Ucucha 17:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There was some recent discussion about quote boxes like the one in the "Marriage" paragraph at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive46. Their acceptability in FAs is debatable, it seems. Ucucha 18:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll implement your suggestions later, so that we don't get edit conflicts. I saw the quote boxes in the article about Joan of Arc; that being a featured article, I thought they were useful. Removing them would make me quite sad as I believe they are add a special touch to the article (as they contain descriptions of her by her contemporaries). But if they are an obstacle to seeing the article on the main page, I'll wish them all the best and get rid of them. Surtsicna (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't feel strongly about it; perhaps you can just keep them for now and remove them if there is consensus at the FAC that their use is inappropriate. A few more comments below. Ucucha 18:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The sentence "Francis was Emperor Charles VI's favourite candidate for Maria Theresa's hand."—seems out of place in its current location, and fits better in the previous paragraph.
 * "since she was precluded from being elected Holy Roman Empress"—this sounds like there was a problem with her specifically becoming Holy Roman Empress. Don't you mean "since women could not be elected Holy Roman Empress"?
 * You often use very short sentences, which make the text choppy. I changed a few instances, but there are more. Ucucha 18:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please watch for repeat links, such as to Maria Antonia; I and I think most FA editors prefer to link any article at most once in the lead and then once in the body. Ucucha 18:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see the connection between being born between the Baroque and Rococo eras and not being able to overcome prejudices.
 * The thematic organization of the article, while not necessarily a bad idea, creates some problems: for example, you mention her as a widower before the section where it is actually stated that Frederick died. Ucucha 19:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for all your comments and edits! I'll start fixing and clarifying things once María is done, though I am not sure how to solve the last problem. If you see something else that should be fixed, please let me know. Cordially, Surtsicna (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome; good luck improving the article! Ucucha 20:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

List of Governors of Utah
Howdy Ucucha.... I've made some changes on the List of Governors of Utah concerning your objections and I haven't seen if they meet your approval. Sorry to be antsy about this, but I'd like to see the page get to FL so I don't ever have to deal with the page again :) Bgwhite (talk) 06:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I replied there. Ucucha 06:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Boy, do you ever sleep? Thank you for your quick response.  I removed the location of the Salt Lake Telegram per your concern. Bgwhite (talk) 08:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I do, just in a different timezone. :-) Ucucha 09:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Lagidium ahuacaense
-- Cirt (talk) 06:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

B. Lawrence
Sorry to doubt your edit on the Plains Viscacha Rat. The "B." is a good addition. Nadiatalent (talk) 13:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. If you feel inclined to write an article about Mrs. Lawrence to make up for taking away her new species from her, there's an obituary here. Ucucha 13:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I should leave writing about zoologists to zoologists. Re: rodents on your user page. Indeed there are, but this morning it was just a red link for me. Some system glitch, not doubt. Hoorah for polyploid mammals, there should be more documentation of them! (I work on polyploidy plants.) Nadiatalent (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Tympanoctomys deserves a better article; there have been several papers published about various aspects of its biology, so a decent article should be possible. So much to do. Ucucha 16:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Spermophilus
I just downloaded the article: Helgen, Kristofer M.; Cole, F. Russel; Helgen, Lauren E.; and Wilson, Don E (2009). "Generic Revision in the Holarctic Ground Squirrel Genus Spermophilus". It does appear the species name change is appropriate. I will try to gradually correct the other articles that are also not up-to-date with this change. DGERobertson (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the evidence is good. is also working on updating the ground squirrel articles; I think he changed most by now. Ucucha 16:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move
Hi Ucucha,

I did this request, apparently on the wrong place. Could I ask you to fix it? I would say it can easily be done by removing Songtsän Gampo and renaming Songtsen Gampo to Songtsän Gampo, as Tibetologist likes. There's not really a need to merge histories, I would say, because nothing has changed in the article. Can you do that or should it not be done that way on English Wikipedia? Regards, Davin (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I fixed it. The page history is now in place at the correct page. Ucucha 17:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Davin (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Mesozoic mammals of Madagascar
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 12:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for List of bats of Madagascar
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 00:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Image and link review
Can you please do that for Featured list candidates/List of Madonna concert tours/archive1? Its been lying there for a long time. --Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 03:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I'd rather not; I've got a lot of things to do Wikipedia and I'd rather spend my time on topics I am interested in. Ucucha 18:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Lavanify
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 18:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Krill FAR
Hi Ucucha! I am just stopping by to ask if you would like to visit the featured article review for Krill (the review page can be found at Featured article review/Krill/archive1)? An editor has done quite a bit of work on the article, but I would like to get the opinions of a couple of biology people who are active at FAC before I close the review. Thanks in advance if you have the time and interest; if not, no biggie! Dana boomer (talk) 01:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not, I'll take a look. Ucucha 05:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments! Dana boomer (talk) 20:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Ambondro (genus)
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 00:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Cy-près doctrine in English law
Thanks for this review! Give me a poke if you have any articles of your own to review, and I'll take a look. Ironholds (talk) 19:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, it's something different from what I usually do on Wikipedia. I currently have four at WP:GAN; if you're interested in reviewing a rice rat, a couple of millions-year-old teeth, an even older piece of jaw, or an elusive bat, take your pick. Ucucha 19:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Socotra Sparrow
Now that I've been looking for information on this species (and the Abd al-Kuri Sparrow, which BirdLife International, and hence the next IUCN list recognises), I don't think I'll need your help so much. A good deal of the literature on this species is available online (especially on the Biodiversity Heritage Library; it is lucky the volumes for some journals are available, as most are not) and all the works I've seen a bibliographical reference to are online or at a library near me. I've even found this nice illustration by Joseph Smit (I think some of his illustrations are in your rice rat articles). However, could you bother checking Zoological Record? &mdash;innotata 17:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks nice; I don't remember using one of his images, but I certainly hope he has done some rice rats.
 * The Zoological Record gives ten hits for Passer insularis, most of which are old, look like passing mentions, or both. However, there is a 2008 paper by Kirwan (Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club  Volume: 128   Issue: 2   Pages: 83-93   Published: JUN 2008). I can have a look in the library if necessary. None of the rest sound very interesting, but I can e-mail you the list if you wish. "Socotra Sparrow" produces Title: Contribution to the ornithological study of Socotra Island Author(s): Clouet, Michel; Goar, Jean-Louis; Barrau, Claude Source: Alauda   Volume: 66   Issue: 3   Pages: 235-246   Published: 1998, which may also be interesting. Ucucha 17:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure Smit did some rice rats—he was extremely prolific, illustrating multiple entire journals and scores of books for decades, and his illustrations cover about every group of mammals and birds and every part of the world—but I didn't find any Oryzomyini in his Commons category (though it only contains a few images currently).
 * I think I can get the BBOC article one way or another, but I'm not absolutely certain. Please do e-mail the Zoological record result; with such an obscure species it will probably be worthwhile. The Alauda paper may be worthwhile, but it may not deal with the sparrow in detail (though it is a very common bird there, and a brief mention could contain something valuable). &mdash;innotata 23:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I e-mailed the list. Do you need help getting the Alauda paper? It's in the library here. Ucucha 05:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have the e-mail (and there are some papers I likely will use). Yes, do look at the Alauda paper, and send it if you think it may be useful. &mdash;innotata 01:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I will. At the latest next weekend, perhaps earlier. Ucucha 06:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I had a look today. Clouet et al. have short accounts of each species. The one on p. 241 says it is a sedentary breeder and very common, being present in all environments at all altitudes. On November 20, 1997, they found nests under construction and a female with "plaque incubative" (not entirely sure what that means; I assume something which indicates she was reproductively active). They cite Forbes-Watson as having noted nest-building from March to June. This from Ripley, S.D. & Bond, G.M. 1966. The birds of Socotra and Abd-el-Kuri. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 151, 7: 1-37. That sounds like a good source (you might also have found it already). On p. 243, Clouet et al. have a table with the frequency of presence of each bird species. For P. insularis, this is 0.83 in the coastal plain, 0.33 in the foothills, 0.77 in the valleys, and 1.00 in the mountains. Something which is apparently a measure of altitudinal range, but which I couldn't quite make out, is 3.75, which was one of the highest values in the table. Ucucha 15:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This should be useful. The "plaque incubative" stuff, if you're curious, must refer to a brood patch. &mdash;innotata 20:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Thanks for the translation of the plaque; I didn't know about that feature of birds. Ucucha 21:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

ce on List of museums in Somerset
Thanks for your copyedits on List of museums in Somerset however artefacts is the British English spelling of US "artifacts" - see Artifact (archaeology) & its a UK topic - are you happy if I change them back?&mdash; Rod talk 16:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The article used both, and the first one I encountered was "artifact". I also thought that is the American spelling, but according to artifact it's also used by the OED. If you prefer to use "artefact", I have no problem with that. Ucucha 16:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:German submarine U-104 (1940)/GA1
I've replied to that last comment.--<font style="color:#191970">White Shadows <font style="color:#DC143C">There goes another day 15:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've also added in that last citation that you requested.--<font style="color:#191970">White Shadows <font style="color:#DC143C">There goes another day 15:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

DonCalo
Beste Ucucha, ik heb last van user:DonCalo die misbruik maakt van de rollback bevoegdheid. Zie de geschiedenis van Marcello Dell'Utri. Is hier wat aan te doen? Kan DonCalo de rollback feature of reviewer feauture ontnomen worden? Otto (talk) 11:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any misuse of rollback; DonCalo used Twinkle with an appropriate edit summary (I haven't checked who of you is correct in the content dispute). I hope he'll engage on the talk page so you two can come to a consensus. Ucucha 11:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Pipistrellus raceyi
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 12:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Transandinomys
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 18:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice article! But...how does an article with such POV language as "soft-furred rice rats" get to be a GA? And do you think I should get one of these critters for my kids? Drmies (talk) 16:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sshh! Don't disrupt my big breaching experiment to test whether it is possible to get blatantly POV language in featured articles. I am afraid they're not commonly sold as pets. But you can go down to Panama or so and find one, I guess. It might even get you something new: there are several species of rodents that were discovered in the pet trade. Ucucha 16:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Seorsumuscardinus
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Neoromicia malagasyensis
The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Fossil
Thanks for the fossils, I'll put it in later <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  12:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Help!
Hey Ucucha, can you find anything else for American Church Quarterly Review? I'm having no luck at all. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look soon. Ucucha 15:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I am somewhat surprised that for such an ancient journal there are so few sources--I've plowed through Google News, Scholar, and Books already. Drmies (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Then I'll try to think of some other place to look. JSTOR? Ucucha 16:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please. I tried to do that for The Church Quarterly Review but could not exclude hits from the journal itself. Also, there's something weird: through our subscription to JSTOR I could not get to this article--very strange. I tried looking for the author as well, but in the long list of hits that article never turned up, and it seems the journal isn't even indexed. Maybe my university has JSTOR lite? Drmies (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, do you have any experience with reference software? I am getting ready to kill Procite 5 (and its developers and customer service), and the program hasn't been updated in years. I need something that can handle my extensive ProCite databases but is better--more intuitive, more user-friendly, more flexible in output formats... Or do you know of an expert? (I'm thinking about EndNote.) Drmies (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have experience with any of those programs.
 * HOLLIS helps a little. It was apparently published in New Haven from 1858 to 1863, then in New York from 1863 to 1870, then in Philadelphia until 1871. However, the first volume available at Harvard (1858) is 11(2), so presumably it is older. Also, it was Episcopal. It was apparently actually called "American Quarterly Church Review", and after 1872 it became the "American Church Review". |library/m/aleph|010564814 This HOLLIS record has some more information. This became the "Church Review" in 1885, and then the "Church Review and Ecclesiastical Register" in 1888, and again the "Church Review" in 1890, and it apparently stopped publishing in 1891. Ucucha 18:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ucucha for the legwork. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow. With your help I finally found the "right" title for the journal, with a real printed source for its history. It really helped me up the count on moves and redirects! Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 01:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But you may have made it more confusing even than it is. Did it publish under two titles from 1886 to 1889? And how can a misprint be attested from 1892 if it no longer published after 1891? Ucucha 06:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Little Thetford (FAC)
You commented on the etymology of Little Thetford at the Little Thetford (FAC), thank you. I hope I have been able to resolve your query satisfatorily --Senra (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Dashes
I appreciate you trying to get pages in line with the MOS, but I think that you are going overboard with the dashes script. You are changing titles of references with it and it is my understanding that reference titles should be exact duplications of the title. —Ost (talk) 16:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We generally correct dashes to our house style. It's impossible to fully replicate a title, and little things like dashes are routinely corrected. See also WT:Featured article candidates/archive46. Ucucha 16:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that information, though I'm a little confused. The discussion says that hyphens weren't exceptions, and then MOSQUOTE was changed.  That apparently abandoned discussion was rather short and I'm surprised that it is establishes consensus when Dank was airing concerns similar to mine—namely that searches fail with changed titles. The idea of titles as quoted text doesn't feel right and I regularly avoid changing hyphens in refs. —Ost (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I do think correcting hyphens is the accepted practice around FAC—I'm not the only one doing it. If you wish to change the practice, it's probably best to take it up at WT:FAC or WT:MOS; I'm happy to follow whatever consensus develops. Ucucha 18:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've never taken an article to FAC, so that may be why I'm not familiar with the practice. I know that I was corrected for changing Pokemon to Pokémon, even though MOSQUOTE prescribes that "Trivial spelling or typographical errors should be silently corrected", so I leave titles alone. I was thinking about asking at WP:CITE for advice, but I wouldn't want to step on the toes of MOS or FAC if those are better venues. Like you, I'll be fine with whatever the consensus; there are just many titles I've skipped over that I could have fixed with Advisor.js. —Ost (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry; I assumed your question related to an article at FAC, as that is where I usually run the date script. I don't know whether WT:MOS or WT:CITE would be a better venue: either will probably get you a response. (Although I suspect the answer is more likely to be "leave the hyphens alone" at WT:CITE and "use the correct dashes" at WT:MOS.) Ucucha 20:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That's unfortunate, but you're probably right about getting different responses. —Ost (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Your script should not change articles that conform to MOS, as you did at École L'Odyssée (here). Using &amp;ndash; and so on may not be to your liking, but conforms to MOS: MOS does not say what the HTML markup for them should be. So it is not "fixing" them, as the ES says, but arbitrarily changing them.

I don't see too well, so in an editor I find it hard to distinguish em and en dashes that are written as Unicode characters instead of HTML markup (but I don't just go changing them back). Others find the reverse, that the HTML markup clutters it. I have discussed this recently at the WP:DASH talk page, and as you may see, others have too. The general consensus is to leave them as you find them.

It seems ridiculuous to change an article just because it uses HTML markup instead. I suggest, at least, you don't change an article if the change is simply from HTML markup to Unicode characters (i.e. not actually changing the resulting displayed document). That is, keep a flag of whether any changes are substantial changes to conform to WP:DASH or just changes from markup to Unicode characters under personal preference; if just the latter, don't make the change.

Otherwise your changing articles just clutters the history, and the ES of "fixing" them sits ill with at least one editor who takes a lot of care to get these kinds of things right. At best, it is "changing" them. I find similar pointy words like from other bots about "fixing" links and so on rather annoying as well; a script should AGF that the real human editor might have made a conscious decision to do something a particular way, and does not particularly want their good edits implied as needing to be "fixed".

Si Trew (talk) 06:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The script does not change anything when it would only change HTML entities to normal dashes; I actually fixed several hyphens to dashes in your article. Your reverting my edit as "vandalism" was quite uncalled for; I have now again fixed all the erroneous hyphens, but used &amp;ndash; instead of –. Ucucha 06:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way my concern with things "cluttering the history" (and this applies to all bots and scripts that overdo the work they do) is not one of space etc, i.e. nothing to do with WP:NOTPAPER. It's simply that irrelevant changes like this make it harder to spot substantial changes for good or ill to an article. Si Trew (talk) 06:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually made a substantial changes in correcting several erroneous hyphens. By the way, if you have problems distinguishing dashes, may I suggest wikEd, which automatically shows the distinction? Ucucha 06:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I retract the "vandalism" mark and apologise for that. Si Trew (talk) 06:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I use wikEd (I think), but it distinguishes them with a tiny light-green "n" or "m" above the dash, which I find difficult to see. It's also hard for me to type those marks (apparently on Apples it is easier), which is why I use the HTML markup. Si Trew (talk) 06:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, it uses a little bluish-green "n" and "m" above the dash. Perhaps there is a way to make it appear in a clearer color such as black, though I wouldn't know how. Ucucha 07:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for yours. I still suggest changing the automated (I assume) "fixing" to "changing" in the edit summary, as being more neutral language. It was that "fixing" thing that got my goat, I don't like machines (and I regard a script as a machine) telling humans what is right and wrong. It's probably for that reason that I went yar-boo and marked as vandalism (something I rarely do) just because it annoyed me – wrong but understandable I think (and I hadn't had my first cigarette of the day). That all being said, at least you leave a decent edit summary, there's nothing worse than a string of edits with no ES at all.


 * I suggest another good reason for not changing HTML markup to Unicode (and vice versa) i.e. changes that do not affect the displayed document: it makes it harder to find the real changes you have made (e.g. in the tables). If there are loads of changes to an article it is hard to see the meat for the potatoes, i.e. that some of the changes are worthwhile and some are irrelevant. Thus, it's easier to undo the edit under WP:BRD and expect the other editor to discuss what changes they have put in, than trail through stacks of seemingly irrelevant changes only to find that somewhere there is one of substance. In fact that's how I came to discuss this on WP:DASH recently, since it seems some editors have an option automatically to replace the markup, and then you end up with a stack of changes like that in one edit, "masking" the one real change. Again, WP:ES helps enormously there, and if it were me I would have the Wikimedia server simply refuse any edit that did not have an ES (or had only a section title as ES).


 * Just for information, I only have been subbing that article for the last few days as part of a GA review and have no interest in it beyond that.


 * I'll be pleased of any reply, but it's probably time we both got on with some constructive work! Have a good day. Si Trew (talk) 07:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, the way the dashes script works dictates that it changes all HTML entities to Unicode (or vice versa, I assume). That is somewhat unfortunate, but it does make articles internally contistent (many articles mix HTML and Unicode dashes). Besides, any edit I make with the script (and I always review the changes before I save them) does include real fixes&mdash;like the hyphens I corrected to en dashes in the school article.


 * I disagree that it is good to revert in situations like this; you could as well have asked for an explanation without reverting, which would have cluttered the history less (in fact, I noticed you had reverted me only when I was editing the article to replace the Unicode dashes with HTML entities). I noticed you also reverted my edit to Sheffield, although that article actually already mostly used Unicode dashes.


 * But I certainly agree that we should have some more constructive, and important, things to do! Ucucha 08:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I reverted Sheffield by mistake, really; I looked at your contributions and clicked on the wrong one (wanting to get the École), and didn't realise until I had saved it. I was just taking WP:BRD - the R comes before the D. Si Trew (talk) 10:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)