User talk:UtherSRG/Arch5

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them;

• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Tip: you can sign your name with ~~~~

snoyes 20:07, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Archives

• Archive1: User talk:UtherSRG/Arch1
• Archive2: User talk:UtherSRG/Arch2
• Archive3: User talk:UtherSRG/Arch3
• Archive4: User talk:UtherSRG/Arch4

Wikiholics

Yes, I'm an RC junky. ;-) Check your email. --snoyes 05:01, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Funny, I was just adding it when I saw your comment. :). I think we need to start Wikipedia:Wikiholics anonymous. --snoyes 05:24, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes! Definitely! Um... but not tonight. :) Email coming to ya... a quick silly. - UtherSRG 05:30, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hehe. The quote did not come out of a vacuum. I sent an email to the wikipedia-english mailing list reiterating my call for the ban of a specific user. ? (With said quote - naturally) ;-)--snoyes 05:38, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You still on WP? looks like you might have left a half hour ago. I need to find a sysop, & where in the world is Angela when i need her! (Shame on me.) --Jerzy 17:00, 2004 Jan 21 (UTC)

Thanx for welcoming me

Hi! Thanks for leaving me aa little welcome message!Frogprincess1312 06:20, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well that's all I had to say :-D Laudaka 14:29, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice welcome - Drago9034 05:04, Jan 29, 2004 (UTC)

Hi there! Thanks for the welcome! Mark Richards

Thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia my goal is to do the best that I can to help improve wikipedia in all of the areas that I can. Daniel.

Thanks for the welcome note. Helped me understand the User talk thing, and was encouraging. I've been editing modestly for a while now. You set a nice tone for friendly welcoming which invites new users to feel at home. Kd4ttc 03:00, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for welcoming me. However I guess I stay on the German Wikipedia project and just add the inter wiki links here. -- MichaelHaeckel 19:18, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. I really don't know anyone around here yet, and it was nice to know that somebody cared! Jeru 11:07, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Um, I'm not sure how to leave messages on this just yet, but you can always delete this, right? Thanks for the welcome message. Sorry about the inappropriate link. 「Jeshii 12:57, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)」

Thanks for your welcome. (I'm sure you welcome my thanks or do you want to say thanks for the thanks. Then I should say thanks for your thanks....ad infinitum.....) :) I still need to understand the copyright thing. I'd like to upload a rewrite or summary of the 'Waking the Tiger book' under a wikipedia article 'How to Heal Traumas' . Sorry to all wikipedians for the copyright infringements.(they were deleted) Best regards, Jondel 04:38, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This just one more thank you for one more kind welcome written by you. Hgfernan 08:45, 13 May 2004

Oh yes, it's taking me a while to find my way around talk pages and stuff, but I was very pleased with the welcome you gave me, too. Thanks, and keep up the good work. Tonusperegrinus 20:28, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Taxa et al.

Hi there. I just wanted to say thank you for tidying up after me and for all your tireless work on taxa and the like. I know it can be a thankless job, but you've certainly got mine! :) Hadal 05:57, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Fishes

Hee hee, forced by circumstances; went to the library to get 2nd volume of American Beetles (which seems to be a best source of current taxa), but it was checked out! So checked out Nelson again instead, restarted my previous piscean efforts. There are about 400 families left to describe, and good online info at FishBase, just have to turn it into English. :-) Just got my copy of Colledge for RN ships too, almost regretting having to leave for a week's vacation in the Caribbean... :-) Stan 06:37, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

BTW, in taxoboxes, editors generally don't favor trying to indent with ":", because it makes the boxes too wide and squishes the text for people with smaller screens; sometimes shallow indents are done with multiple nbsp bits. I generally don't call much attention to superfamilies/suborders myself, just include them "for the record", for nonscientists they're kind of a distraction on the way to the interesting critters. :-) Stan 07:15, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on pollock. While I know nothing about taxobox formatting policy, I thought you might want to know that I just copied the taxobox from cod. So, you should probably also change the taxobox for cod or else change back pollock. :) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:41, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)

Birds

Hi Uther. I know you are putting a great deal of work into those long genera listings in taxoboxes, but I think we need to discuss it. The current convention is that we simply say "many: see text" where there are a lot of genera to list. This is something that evolved over a period of time when we tried lots of different ideas out, and I think most of the people working on vertebrates are comfortable with this. It would be wise, I think, to talk it over with the main contributors to the bird (and related) articles. Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds would be a good place, or pop a note on Jim's and Big Iron's talk pages. Best Tannin 14:44, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Croc pic

Do with the croc pic as you will - I've found one for Cobra too. Jim

Whales articles

Thanks for all the cpediting on the various new dolphin articles. It is appreciated. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:03, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Selaginella

Hi Uther - As far as I'm aware, there is only the one currently recognised genus Selaginella in the order, with 700+ species. But I strongly suspect that's because no-one has done a critical revision of the genus for about a hundred years. Can't see one getting done, either, given their lack of economic importance. - MPF 16:34, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Turtur

Pease could you clarify why you have listed turtur at Wikipedia:Deleted_test#New_notices. Thanks. Angela. 00:42, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

Binomial nomenclature vs. Binomial name

You said at Clymene Dolphin that you have been changing binomial name to binomial nomenclature "all other the place". I am not sure that is true for the whales and dolphins - I have all of them on my watchlist and haven't noticed you make that change on them. More importantly, is it definitely right? What we are filling in at that point is the binomial or scientific name.. not the nomenclature which tells how to create the binomial name. So its better to write binomial name right? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:43, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

My understanding is that the "two part name" used is "binomial nomenclature". It's a fancy way of saying the same thing, with the understanding that it comes from a certain process and isn't just arbitrary. Not just any "two part name" is "binomial nomenclature". My name is Stacey Greenstein, but that's not binomial nomenclature. There was no systemic approach to calling me that. The Genus-Species paired names come from a systemic naming system, and so "nomenclature" is appropriate. - UtherSRG

Oh, and I just haven't gotten to the whales since I've started this. *grins* - UtherSRG 16:52, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think you are getting confused between the process of constructing a binomial name. That process is called binomial nomenclature. A particular name, once constructed according to that method, is the binomial name of the species. Thus the appropiate title at that point in the taxobox is binomial name, not binomial nomenclature. I am not making this up - see e.g. dictionary.com's definition of nomenclature here - http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=nomenclature - in particular definition 2. Thanks! Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 19:16, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Interesting. Ah, but if you scroll down you will see Webster's definition, which indicates that "nomenclature" is both the name and the system that generates the name. I give. I don't care that much either way. I'm more interested in making sure all the data in the taxoboxes and all taxa pages are formatted correctly and give proper notation (italics, bolding, links). - UtherSRG 19:37, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It looks like Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life and Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds have different recommendations. I'll try to solicit some more opinions about what is most appropiate in this case. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 19:52, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

taxo comments

Two brief comments. Firstly, I'm with Tannin on keeping taxoboxes lean and mean. Secondly, in my view Marsh Harrier should stay as one article for the time being. The splits are not universally accepted, and the three articles would be very similar. I have adopted a similar approach with other species that are possible splits, and even occasionally for unarguable, but very similar species, such as Kittiwake. Jim.

Drongo

Re Drongo endings: don't know, Tannin is the taxoexpert for this group. I'll take that line out since it's not inmost species taxoboxes anyway, and I've got to edit to add a picture. Jim.

WikiProject Primates

I get a smile on my face every time I see your name. *grins* Perhaps you'd like to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Primates?

You made my day :)), thank you! The funniest part was when I belatedly discovered that Humus is very different from the intended Hummus. My original idea was homo sapiens with a Mediterranean flavor... Sorry I'll have to refuse this offer for now: afraid I won't be a constructive contributor there. Humus sapiens 21:39, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm in now; I'd been meaning to, actually.. but hadn't yet committed. :) I'll probably focus on writeups of salient species or genera we don't yet have covered. Primate taxa, however, makes me cringe. By the way, nice work on the status msg tags; it's a great feature! Cheers, -- Hadal 19:08, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

taxoboxes

Hi Uther,
Thanks for the note - anything I should be noting in particular?
Generally when I put in a new taxobox, I just copy across from a related species, so as to minimise the munber of items to change. There's a bewildering variety of different constructions, even though they all look more-or-less the same in general appearance! Thanks - MPF 23:48, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

True. We're no longer linking the taxon rank titles. That's the biggest one. Check out the few samples on the page, and the talk page. - UtherSRG 23:52, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi. About Liriodendron. Didn't we decide to bold only the taxon in question? The species list in that case would not be bolded if the article is for a genus. Or am I missing something? -- WormRunner 17:48, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes. However, take a look at What links there. The page is the species page as well! - UtherSRG 17:50, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Aconitum

Hi Uther, just done a bit edit on Aconitum which ended up with a time conflict with yours on saving; as it had quite a lot of typo corrections etc in, I didn't want to just abandon it so put it on top of yours - can you check to see if there's anything of yours lost in the process? Thanks MPF 14:59, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Looks like we had the same things in mind. *grins* - UtherSRG 15:02, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Spider monkey

:) I think I'm done for now; I'm not sure how in-depth to go for a genus-level article. Hope it's up to scratch and such. By the way, were you the one who requested a better image for the hominid page? If so, what did you have in mind? (I'm tempted to look for some decent shots and beg pitifully for permission.) -- Hadal 19:27, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Neon Tetra

I see you've handled this already, thanks! - Hephaestos|§ 02:26, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Iguanas

Hi, I did the move you requested. I wasn't sure whether iguanas should be delinked in the lizard article, or whether something was going to go at that title. Angela. 13:18, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)

image size

Is there any special reason to set image width in taxonomy tables to 200px? Especially when an article is a stub, and the image is more or less all its contents? Iorsh 15:17, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

page move

the deed is done -incidentally, this page is 46k long now jimfbleak

Thanks. And now I've done archived and reduced this page. :) - UtherSRG 15:54, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Pine, Scots pine

Hi Uther, can you keep an eye out for edits by Kenneth Allen, please - he's messing things up with a lot of nonsense. There's already been quite a bit about him said at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress (contents item 5.35), and it seems he's spreading his wings. What's the best to do, please? Thanks, Michael MPF 13:50, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'll be on the lookout. Meanwhile, since I don't know enough factual data to counter his Pine edits, I suggest you make a note on ViP and revert any mis-factual changes he makes, citing references when you can in the talk: pages. - UtherSRG 13:59, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Uro*

Thanks, that's what i hoped for, and plz forgive me for putting off reviewing yr prompt effort for a number of hours. --Jerzy(t) 14:42, 2004 Apr 5 (UTC)

Magnifying Glass

Hi again! Do you mind if I return the magnifying glass to the taxobox? Have a look at Coscoroba Swan. The minor problem is the blank caption space that results. I believe it's important to let the reader know that an enlarged version is available and how else can we do that. What do you think?
Adrian Pingstone 15:36, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nope. No magnifying glass in taxoimages. If you really need to alert the reader, you can change the internal caption to something like:

[[image:swan|200px|click for larger image]]

Doing this will give the caption text on a mouse hover. You shouldn't need to do this, though, as the cursor should change to indicate the image is a link.Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life recommends not using a magnifying glass. The ugliness of it outweighs the benefit in the taxotable. - UtherSRG 15:41, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A curious decision since I imagined that the aim of an encyclopedia was to give information to the reader. The mag glass is a simple and neat way of giving information that there exists a larger pic. I do not find an icon of a mag glass ugly, I find it informative. Why should it not be allowed and where does it say this? There is no mention of the mag glass in the Tree of life you referenced, I've read it three times and can find nothing. Obviously if this is a proper decision of the Taxobox Committee I'll have (reluctantly) to go along with it.

Adrian Pingstone 15:58, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Urm... you'll have to loo through the talk or its 4 archives to find it. Perhaps we should be more specific on the Project itself, but the examples shown with images all have no mag glass. No wait... my bad... we removed the samples. Ok. I'm going to update the ==Images and maps== section.- UtherSRG 16:07, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

bot

Hi, a bot was blocked just before, running from IP address 195.50.12.118. It looks like it might be your bot - if it is, take a look at User talk:195.50.12.118. -- Jeronim 20:07, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

agouti

Sorry, I decided to remove those links to the genera Agouti, Dasyprocta and Myoprocta because of the nomenclature mess about Agouti (general ambiguous term) and Agouti (genus). The name agouti presumably should be the new dsiambig page, so were do we put the article about the genus? Jorge Stolfi 14:36, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Adminship

Hello Uther, I've nominated you for adminship, as I think you've done a fine job here. Please visit the nomination page to accept or decline your nomination. Chris Roy 20:00, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi Uther: Congratulations on your nomination! Thanks for the note; deal with it as you see fit. - MPF 12:35, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You made it, with the most overwhelming consensus I've seen in my 2.5 years here! --Uncle Ed 20:08, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

genus articles

Hi and congratulations. Thanks for tidying up after me.

One query, and forgive me if the discussion has taken place elsewhere. I note that the new taxoformat has a link from the genus. I have no strong views on this but I wonder about the rational. I can see that some large genera need articles, like Accipiter, but in general either a genus will contain a single species (self-redirect) or will not get an article written or will be made a redirect to the family, eg Ciconia could be redirected to Stork.

As I said, I don't have strong views, just interested in the thinking here, Jim

I prefer the link for a couple of reasons. Completeness and consistancy rank high for me. For instance, look at what I did with Halcyon and Halcyonidae. There was no reason it should be the only non-linked genus on the family page. (Hrm... forgot to link the species list...that's another completeness factor item...) Also, working hand-in-hand with the completeness factor is the forward looking factor. Just because a particular rank is of little importance today, doesn't mean it won't need an article tomorrow. I'd prefer to have the links already there and waiting to go than to have to go back and find all the places it should have been linked. (Again, the species lists come to mind for this, too.)

As for what is contained in a genus article, well, I think think it varies more from class to class. Perhaps the birds don't need genus articles as much because so much is written on the order, family and species levels. Some other classes seem to have a greater need for genus level articles, perhaps because the choice of what node is picked as a genus is more arbitrary for birds than it is for other animals. Or perhaps this is just my own biassed perception.

UtherSRG 14:04, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

PS. Yes, when there is only a single species in the genus, then it shouldn't get linked, becuase the article is then also an article for the genus and the species. - UtherSRG 14:23, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'll continue to muse here... There's another monkey-wrench in the works when the genus name is not unique and can standfor the common generic term, such as Jacana or Lemur. I've had a few twists in that regard like Agouti where the term applies to all of an entire family, one of the genera in that family, or one of the other genera in the family! Sheesh! Stupid taxonomists! *grins* - UtherSRG 15:40, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Common name capitalization

What's with the complete capitalization of common names? I've never seen this done anywhere. I don't think it's a good idea. jaknouse 02:20, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes you have. Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life. - UtherSRG 11:40, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Err.. my bad. It' son Wikipedia:WikiProject Primates and wikipedia:WikiProject Birds. I'll start the discussion on ToL about adopting it there, too. - UtherSRG 12:00, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And I take that back, too. You *were* involved in the discussion on ToL. Archive 4. - UtherSRG 12:05, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What people were arguing for was the capitalization of the initial word of the common name, not the whole thing. jaknouse 15:45, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No. The discussion included items such as Blue Whale vs. Blue whale. It's first letter of each (unhyphenated) word. Pink-backed Pelican, Palm-nut Vulture. Look at the Primate and Bird Projects. - UtherSRG 15:51, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi Uther, I seem to notice you constantly updating my taxo boxes when I use them. I only copy and paste from existing ones, changing the test detail within of course. I shall have to make a note of yours and keep to that format. regards

Steve nova 19:37, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In Reply to Pine Barrens Question

Yes, "pine barrens" is apparently a general term for sandy habitats with lots of pines. Despite my lack of reading comprehension (resulting in my other edits), and being interupted several times, a bit of googling brought up other uses for "barrens" beyond New Jersey ([1], [2], [3]). Pass me the coffee... ~ FriedMilk 12:56, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Question about definitions

Hello. Glad to be here. I have a question that I couldn't find a satisfactory answer to, and I was wondering if you could help me. I know that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. But some terms are very specific to a particular science or study. For instance, the entry on cumin mentions laciniate leaves. Most intelligent people don't know what laciniate means. It seems like there are three options, none satisfactory.

1. One could leave the term undefined. But shouldn't this information be as accessable as possible?
2. One could make an entry for laciniate. But Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a dictionary.
3. One could link to an external dictionary. But it would have ads, be closed-content, etc.

So what's the best solution? Thanks, Quadell 01:11, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Good question, Quadell. Your options are a good attempt at answering your own question, and you got very close! Here's a few that you may find more viable:

1. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, but Wiktionary is! Linking something link 'laciniate' to a Wiktionary article would be a good solution.
2. Create a new article that describes all the components of a leaf and all the leaf types, then link/redirect laciniate to the new article.

Sorry about not seeing your question sooner, and thanks for moving it to the bottom to attract my attention. - UtherSRG 13:43, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks and congratulations

Thanks for your support on my adminship and congratulations on yours! But really, I was kind of hoping for the admiralship. ;-) Cecropia 04:02, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Taxobox format

I believe I am following the standard taxobox format as given: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Archive3. It is never a good idea to center lists of text, only titles, in HTML as centering can lead to many problems where listings are involved. Since the non-title parts of taxoboxes frequently contain lists it only makes sense to not center these parts. It is also very ugly (IMHO) to center a list and left adjust the title within a box - Marshman 17:40, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Taxoboxes listed on archived talks are older than what is currently listed on the Project page. Theses are the standards, not what is contained in the archived talks. - UtherSRG 17:45, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You are correct there. The examples are absolutely ugly and unworkable in HTML.- Marshman 18:05, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Tables in Articles

Hi Uther, thanks for my earlier weclome.

I am having a problem with a page I created Comparative Ranks of World War II. I want to put notes below the table but they all ways appear above it. I have tried inserting what appears to be the missing endof table command: but this just appears as text with any other notes outside the table still above it. How do I fix this?

Dainamo 18:09, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What you needed mostly were tags to close your tags. HTML tables require that (some of the) closeable tags all be closed. - UtherSRG 18:25, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks UtherSRG for cleaning up so patiently my taxoboxes. I'm slowly learning to do it the right way.

I have a problem, though, with the Status part in the taxoboxes.

There is a status 'unknown'; but I propose a new status 'Not in the IUCN Red List". This, at least, is a known status, somewhere between 'secure' and 'vulnerable' Especially for obscure species, it is almost impossible to find out which status they have. But if they are not listed in the IUCN Red List, then is must be better than 'unknown'. What do you think ? --JoJan 18:55, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ruffe

You changed the format of the Ruffe taxobox. This taxobox can conforma to the way a wikipedia wants to display a taxobox. Copy it to the swedish, the german, the dutch wikipedia and it works. As I have stated before I propose to change all taxoboxes to this format. This will help taxonomic cooperation on all the wikipedias. GerardM 20:36, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Images

Uther, we had discussions about images earlier. Perhaps you'll enjoy the image currently on my user page: heidimo 04:26, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Taxoboxes

UtherSRG, you are doing a lot of good work cleaning up those taxoboxes. This must be tedious work and could be easily avoided by giving examples in HTML or Wiki markup, so that everyone can copy them to use in their own article (of course, while changing the names). Maybe the best place to give these examples would be 'The Tree of Life.' It would spare the contributing Wikipedians a lot of reading and confusion. By the way, has one reached by now a standard for the capitalisation of common names ? JoJan 20:32, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Fish name capitalization

Although I'm tempted, I'm not going to get into edit wars on capitalization of fish species names. However, if you're going to take it upon yourself to go against the standard, please at least go to the trouble of changing articles throughout; by changing just the lead and taxobox, you're making most of the articles internally inconsistent in style, and they look ridiculous as a result. Stan 03:48, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well said. I've proceeded to make the needed changes within the articles. - UtherSRG 15:15, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Monkey (TV)

On Monkey- it must have been a British only thing. It was a cult TV show here. http://www.ewtoo.org/~matt/monkey/ is something that turns up with a quick search. That IMDB thing doesn't have much- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078659/. Ask a Brit who was around during the 70s (or watches a lot of late night TV i.e. me) and they will have heard about it. --Josquius 12:27, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It was hugely popular in Australia, too - enough so that if you quote a famous line from Monkey, or do Tripitaka's "headache sutra", most 30-somethings will know what you mean, while the youngsters look confused. (Not to mention it was also very popular in Japan, obviously.) "In the worlds before Monkey, primal chaos reigned..." Securiger 01:11, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm jealous! Sounds like a neat show! - UtherSRG 01:18, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Protection - star trek

A bit of advice - when you protect pages, please list them on wikipedia:protected page, and say why. Also, protection is supposed to be used only for persistent vandalism - protecting a page after only two problematic edits is probably a touch heavy-handed, and gets in the way of other folks improving the article. Martin 12:36, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The same vandalizer had done about a dozzen edits on another page, and a total of a dozen or so across a number of other pages. Thanks for the advice. - UtherSRG 13:49, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Thanks for the wikifying help on Nancy Wilson (actress). NuclearWinner 22:17, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Taxoboxes and Range Maps

UtherSRG, would you please stop putting the range maps into the taxoboxes? It screws up the article layout, risks separating the descriptive text from the map, and is just a visual nightmare: the taxoboxes get too big and become a serious distraction from the text. I have not seen any consensus in the ToL archives as to the placement of range maps — some people wanted them in the taxoboxes, others thought they might just as well be outside. I strongly feel they should be floating in the text. Lupo 15:21, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Actually, it seemed more generally accepted to have the maps in the taxobox. I even updated the Project to note it. No one had objected to that updating of the Project. I just now "loosened" the stricture of image size, since concensus is that I was being too narrow (pun intended) on that parameter. Do check out the work Pete did in his Cetaceans for how appropriate it is to have range maps in the taxobox. - UtherSRG 16:33, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am well aware of Pete's work—in fact, I drew the map on Ganges Dolphin. If Pete thinks it's ok to have the map in the taxobox, fine. I think it would generally be better floating with the text. If there is a lot of text, and there isn't a section that has close ties with the map, it may even make sense. But for smaller articles, I don't like this at all. Especially when the text reads "as shown on the map" or some such. In such cases, the map has to float with the paragraph referencing it, otherwise the reader is only distracted. Lupo 16:42, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, the text can always be amended to read better. The taxobox is a good place to get quick yet highly informative information. Maps do exactly that. As always, the ToL Project is just a guideline. We're each free to do as we feel is best. - UtherSRG 16:48, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

African birds

Thanks for list of African birds tip. Even the stub is a mess, with non-standard names, no binomials etc. If I ever do this list, I'll start from scratch, but even if I find a source, it will be a lot of work formatting it. Jim

Agreed! - UtherSRG 16:33, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Spirula

Why move the spirula page to Ram's Horn Squid? That's only one of several common names, and not necessarily the most common. Spirula seems to be a moderately well known name, at least locally here (we resin-cast the shells).

Also, That image is probably not the best one for the taxobox - I was thinking of putting the photo that's on tolweb there is we can get permission to use it. dramatic 06:47, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

ITIS lists only Ram's Horn Squid as is common name [4]. More importantly, CepBase lists it as the official name [5]. You can still access it by Spirula, but it's now a redirect to the comon name.

I agree that the picture on ToLWeb is better than Chun's illustration, but until we have permission, we can't use it. - UtherSRG 10:50, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Color blindness

In case you're not watching Talk:color blindness: we have been discussing how to construct our own color blindness tests over the past week, and if you are color blind, we would welcome your input on the talk page. Do you see difference between the various spectra shown at the bottom of the talk page? Do you know whether you're are protanopic or deuteranopic? (Both are forms of red-green color blindness, as you probably already know). - Hankwang

I haven't been following along. It smacks of primary research to me. It would be far more appropriate to give two sample Ishihara plates (one for control, and one that dichromats and all three anomalous trichromats will fail on). This could probably be considered fair use. - UtherSRG 13:52, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Eternal (band)

The article title is Eternal, but the first sentence says the band is called Eternity. Which is it?? Michael Hardy 23:41, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Moving Pages

Thank you for so quickly moving those pages. Isn't that in order to move page, the target page must not exists? That was the reason I requested deletion of those pages, (as I could move but I could not delete). Przepla 12:46, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Aplysia

I have a problem accessing this page. When I tried to save this page for the first time, something must have gone terribly wrong. Now when I want to access this page, my link with internet crashes every time. The link with Aplysia originates from Aplysioidea. I think the best way to deal with this, is to remove the page 'Aplysia' with all its content. I have a full copy of the content on my computer. Building a new page can be done in seconds. I come to you with this problem, because I don't know how to handle this problem.

By the way, as to your request to me for starting a Project: Gastropoda, I put an answer on my talk page. Since you have been so busy with Cephalopoda, you probably overlooked this. JoJan 20:27, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Aplysia looks fine from me, apart from the changes I'll eventually make to it. *grins* Yeah, I've gotten busy with Cephs. Good luck with the G-pods. -UtherSRG 21:39, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

• • Still cannot get in. Therefore could you replace the existing text in 'Aplysia' with the following text (cut and paste)

>snipped<

Furthermore, I found out the probable cause of all these problems : in 'Aplysioidea' there are three links to 'Aplysia', where there should be only one (See 'What links here'). I suspect these three links form a loop. I removed therefore 'Aplysia' from the taxobox, hoping that the three links would disappear as well. False hope ! Now I cannot put back 'Aplysia' in the taxobox. If I try, my computer crashes. Will you fix this as well ? JoJan 12:30, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Done. Hope it helps! - UtherSRG 15:47, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'll shun 'Aplysia' anyway, because this darn page keeps crashing my computer.JoJan 18:49, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject Gastropods

I just started this project, mirroring your project. Would you care to take a closer look ? Should this be reported to ToL ? How can I make a request for collaborators ? JoJan 21:27, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Excellent! Yes, go to ToL and find where I have Cephalopods listed and add Gastropods. You can post to Wikipedia:Announcements and Wikipedia:Village Pump to let folks know it's up and running and to find fellow gastropod enthusiasts. - UtherSRG 22:24, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Primates

I'm just trying to bring things in line with the 2000 interdisciplinary meeting of primatologists, taxonomists, conservationists, geneticists, etc. in Orlando. There they recognised five families of Neotropical primates, 40 species of galago, five gorilla subspecies, two orang-utan species, and a fourth chimp subspecies. At that time, there were something like 310 primate species and 608 subspecies. This has increased since then with discoveries in Brazil, Madagascar, etc.

It's going to be such a gargantuan project trying to fix all of this. The trees are going to be a pain, and I'm still debating whether or not I should do them all the way down to the subspecific level, as that's going to double or triple the work for me. Also, there's so much disagreement regarding the placement of the higher taxa. Wish me luck, I guess. Pajamacore 17:36, 2004 May 11 (UTC)

Excellent stuff! This is the kind of influx of data I've been hoping for. If you can, post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Primates with a link to all the new info so that I and others interested can help tackle it. - UtherSRG 17:41, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

C. S. Rafinesque

I have done an article on this zoologist. Would you care to look at it and, as a native speaker, rephrase it where necessary ? JoJan 17:51, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Well done! I've modified it only slightly from your version. - UtherSRG 18:16, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

thanks for the APL math notation

Thanks for your work on APL programming language. Is there any possibility that you can make a second version of the operator table? Most of it doesn't even display in my browser; maybe it'd be better to have "APL operators in Unicode" and "APL operators in math-mode" tables... Grendelkhan 15:43, 2004 May 12 (UTC)

I'm working on it. *grins* I'm about to upload an APL keyboard image. No permission yet, so I'll only put it in the talk page for now. - UtherSRG 15:48, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Copyrighted images

Over on User_talk:Dagestan you told that user that copyrighted images are not allowed here. That's completely wrong. We very strongly encourage copyrighted images when licensed under the GFDL, GFDL-compatible licenses or any other license compatible with our objectives. What we don't encourage here is copyright infringement. Jamesday 04:19, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

True. However, I believe that distinction would have complicated the discussion and bogged it down. As it was, I had an email conversation with him as I walked him through the steps to find the copyright notices on the websites for those images, including the distinction to some degree.. He had simply goten them bia Google images and hadn't checked, and then lied when he said he'd received email permission. - UtherSRG 11:10, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Question about splitting articles

Hi. I was wondering about the proper way to split articles. For instance, on neo-Nazi page I have written a fairly detailed article on Russian extremist groups. Now, I am thinking about putting it into a separate article, but I do not know what to leave on the referral (original) page. How detailed should description of reference be? And what are the accepted guidelines for deciding on a split anyway? Any help greatly appreciated. Watcher 19:55, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Good question. I had to do some research to figure it out. Generally, paraphrase the section you are removing. The paraphrase can be anywhere from a sentance to a short paragraph or two. Between te section header and te paraphrase, add something like the following:

Full article: neo-Nazi Russian extremist groups

Take a look at Crusade for an example.

- UtherSRG 23:14, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Giant Sequoia

Hi Uther - I'm not really quite sure how to manage pics, and can't get Giant Sequoia to look good, particularly the media links to larger versions and further pics: could I beg you to check over the page and tidy my blunders, please? - Thanks, MPF 16:12, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. - UtherSRG 17:02, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Pinales

Hi again - thanks for the {{msg:merge}} at Pinales, something I've been meaning to do for ages, this gave me the perfect excuse to get it done (hope it wasn't too unseemly quickly done! :-) MPF 15:04, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Too quick, for sure... you didn't give me a chance to pester ya! *grins* - UtherSRG 15:07, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

:o) Reckon I should do the same with conifer? - it covers the same taxon, with no real extra content - MPF 15:26, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Oh yes! Good call!. - UtherSRG 15:34, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Will do; before I do, there's a pic on the page Image:Douglas fir malecone reduced.jpg (and its enlargement Image:Douglas fir malecone.jpg); they actually show a vegetative bud, not a male cone, so are mis-named. As it is a good pic, I was thinking of including it somewhere else, but I'd like to rename it before doing so - and I don't know how to rename a pic. Is it something you know how to do? - MPF 17:08, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

My experimentation has proven fruitless. I believe the only thing to do is to re-upload the images under a new name, and delete these images. The now exist at image:Douglas fir leaves and bud.jpg. - UtherSRG 23:40, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Many thanks! Will do conifer tomorrow - MPF 01:09, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Squid

Thanks! And sorry for such a massively delayed reply; things have been helter-skelter on my end lately and it's left me forgetful. As I can't very well decline your gracious offer, I'll be adding myself to the project in short order. ;) -- Hadal 18:36, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Chris 73 on TV (not)

You can now increase your wikipedia score by 5 ;-)

(see here) -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:24, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Crap. I'm up to 145 now. *grins* - UtherSRG 00:58, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

msg boxes

Hi Uther - do you know how to make these? I'd like to make a {{msg:Pinophyta}} to put at the bottom of each family page to replace my existing links line. Thanks - MPF 12:43, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Yup. The messages are created on th MediaWiki namespace. Any page there is accessible as a message. You want Template:Pinophyta. You'll then want to add it to Wikipedia:MediaWiki_custom_elements#Biology. - UtherSRG 15:39, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Many thanks! - let me know what you think of it - MPF 21:06, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Having done it, I'm not so sure I like it after all . . . changes in a linked family no longer show up in 'Related changes' (which was very useful) - maybe I'll get rid of it and go back to the old style. Any thoughts yourself? - MPF 22:30, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I dunno. I'm still deciding if I like those kind of navboxxes for taxoarticles. - UtherSRG 05:12, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Mersenne

Hi! I hope you will find this, and be able to erase this paragraph. I don't know a more cultural way to reply the e-mail. The info is known to all participants of the mersenneforum - http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=2475&page=10&pp=25 - and the number has been already checked by GLucas, an alternative algorithm. The double check by the particular "official" machine should finish in 3 days or so. All the best, Lubos

Noah's Ark

I note you were another reverter in the Yeti controversy in Jan.; i solicit your attention to the recent edits w/ an IP changing "illegible" and (my own version) "undecipherable" to "clear" on Noah's Ark. Thanks for your attention. --Jerzy(t) 03:17, 2004 May 27 (UTC)

Thanks for the head's up. I'll check it out. - UtherSRG 11:45, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Swap a page with its redirect

Would you please move the page Space Cruiser Yamato to Space Battleship Yamato for me? I've determined that the latter is the proper Americanization of the name of the anime series, but I can't movie it because the latter already exists as a redirect to the former. I see you're an admin, so you have the capability to swap these, right? If you'll do that for me then I'll go correct all the references in that article and in articles which link to it. Thanks! Brian Kendig 03:40, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Gray v Grey

I've moved the langur article to grey langur. Since it's written by a Brit about an Asian species (where British English is the norm, especially in India and Sri Lanka), it's quite unacceptable to unilaterally Americanise the spelling. I don't change Gray-cheeked Thrush to the UK spelling, and I don't expect Americanisation of non-American topics. (incidentally, this page is 44k now) jimfbleak 04:52, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that publishers end to use US spellings to maximise their markets. Handbook of Birds of the World uses gray even for Eurasian species like Grey Wagtail, but I change the spelling to grey for Old World species. The Wikipedia policy on US/UK spelling is clear, and I think that where appropriate the "world list" spelling should be adjusted to the expected form. Sorry if I over-reacted, but you know what a touchy topic this is with Europeans. Jim