This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

September 2011

BTW...

I noticed you had some topic-box kinda thing about Passers, so I created Book:Passer for you.

You can use it to monitor changes related to passer (Book banner, [Recent changes] link in the bottom right corner), and you can check the book report on the talk pages, which keeps track of assessment ratings, cleanup issues, etc... and links to a bunch of tools to help improve/cleanup the articles. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed, yes. What order are these supposed to be in? —innotata 23:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I sorted them alphabetically. If some other structure makes more sense, go for it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An alphabetical order isn't great, especially given the nature of some names (new ones for split species); there's a taxonomic order which is generally used (it's the one used at Passer I think), but the relationships are very uncertain, so what sources say is that no one knows what the order should actually be. I'll look at it later, I think. —innotata 23:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the articles can be renamed to use their scientific latin names (just replace :[[Saxaul Sparrow]] with :[[Saxaul Sparrow|''Passer ammondendri'']], or even :[[Saxaul Sparrow|''P. ammondendri'']]. Or the book could be moved to Book:Sparrows if the common name would be preferred. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think the scientific names would be great, they aren't used that much. Passer is only one part of the sparrow family (the Old World or true one, though these names are used for Passer as well). —innotata 13:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another "by the way": at House Sparrow, you changed a citation to a website, Birds of North America Online, into one to a journal (without changing the "work" parameter). What's that about? —innotata 14:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SOUSA MUSIC IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN

Over on Commons, you have march music composed by John Philip Sousa, and you have it supposedly copyrighted by him. However, the Marches he wrote while he was Band Master of the United States Marine Corps Band, and they are all in the Public Domain since they are technically the property of the US Government.98.110.35.95 (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't said any music by Sousa was (and definitely not still is) copyright by him, just that it would be public domain regardless, as they were published before 1923. I'm not sure all or even any of his compositions while an employee of the government would be public domain as part of his official duties. —innotata 23:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you for your encouraging words. My mother tongue is Polish and I made my first wiki-steps on Polish pages. I'm still a bit ackward in English so I can only make some very small corrections if I find them necessary. Thanks again! Patrycja Z. (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment: Capitalization of common names of animal species

Hello. Just letting you know that I've posted the following at a number of project talk pages:

Hello WikiProject members and others. As part of a discussion at WikiProject Animals, a number of editors have indicated that the presentation of the current guidelines on the capitalization of common names of species is somewhat unclear.

We wish to clarify and confirm existing uncontroversial guidelines and conventions, and present them in a "quick-reference" table format, for inclusion into the guidelines for the capitalization of common names of species.

Please take a moment to visit the draft, and comment at talk. Your input is requested to determine whether or not this table is needed, and to ensure that it is done in the best way possible. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Burrunan dolphin

On 19 September 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Burrunan dolphin, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Burrunan dolphin is only the third new dolphin species to be recognized since the late 19th century? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Burrunan dolphin.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:Category:Guard of Buckingham Palace

Why did you remove this category? I will look here. Thanks.--Kürschner (talk) 06:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did I remove this category from what? —innotata 16:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Category%3AGuard_of_Buckingham_Palace&action=historysubmit&diff=59983072&oldid=42846416 --Kürschner (talk) 08:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the diff. Buckingham Palace guards is a strange category; perhaps it should even be deleted. It contains both Buckingham Palace sentries of the Queen's Guard, and soldiers of the Household Division (the British royal guard unit, and sometimes called that, made up of the Foot Guards and Household Cavalry) who happen to be passing near the Palace. The Foot Guards are the ones with the bearskins, but the Queen's Guard can also be other military personnel, as with File:Guards, Buckingham Palace London April 2006 072.jpg, and the Household Cavalry wear plumed helmets. So plenty of the images already in the category are of "guards" without bearskins; I don't see why this should be a subcategory of Bearskin hats. —innotata 15:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It makes it easier, not to categorize each, maybe even uninteresting, image with bearskin hats, if the category is categorized. If you know the category for the right guards (for example the British foot guards?) it would be nice, you give them the category bearskin hats (if they have not). Thanks, --Kürschner (talk) 11:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a category for the Foot Guards (or Queen's Guard), so I think I'll create one; I think some of the five regiments of Foot Guards have the category. —innotata 16:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, regards from a furrier who never made a bearskin hat (it's hatmaker's job, I promise ;) ) --Kürschner (talk) 08:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Genève natural history museum images

Hello, all my (our) pleasure! For the locality, unfortunately that's the public exposition and there is just the distribution of the species, not the locality where the specimen come from. Passer griseus : Ouest et centre de l'Afrique [West and center of Africa] ; Passer simplex : De la Mauritanie à l'Égypte, centre Soudan, est de l'Iran et sud de la Russie [From Mautritania to Egypt, central Soudan, east of Iran and south of Russia]. Regards, Totodu74 (talk) 08:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm guessing they have the same definition of Passer griseus as the English and French Wikipedias then; I'll have to try to see whether I can identify from the plumage. —innotata 15:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded two new pictures of the specimen, lower quality, see File:Passer griseus Museum de Genève (2).JPG and File:Passer griseus Museum de Genève (3).JPG, if it can helps... Totodu74 (talk) 10:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, probably a Passer griseus sensu stricto given the white throat patch and the darker breast, but Summers-Smith is not very clear on the how museum specimens look; I'll try to find a more detailed source when I have time. —innotata 15:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2011

Re:Resources

Hello, Innotata. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

! Ruigeroeland (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References in leads

Hi, at Talk:Synonym (taxonomy), you wrote "what we try to get to eventually in articles is few references in the lead of articles since everything should be discussed in the body". I'm commenting here because it's not really to do with the Synonym (taxonomy) article. Is what you wrote written down somewhere in Wikipedia policies? When I started editing and creating articles, I took exactly this position. If I had referenced the material in the body of the article, then I didn't repeat the reference in the summary in the lead. This seemed (and still seems) entirely sensible to me. However, I then got "unreferenced" tags added by other editors, so I now generally repeat references in the lead. If there is some source which supports not doing this I would like to know! Peter coxhead (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I can't find anything explicitly saying they should be avoided, in a quick look at the Manual of Style and recognised content pages (I'll see when I have more time). It might just be common sense as you said, but I think I've seen at least a recommendation, and I remember article reviewers insisting references should be removed from a lead. It looks like featured articles always end up with unnecessary references removed. In any case, references should rarely be necessary in the lead (if there isn't something like a quote). —innotata 16:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Innotata/Archive9! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Talkback

Hello, Innotata. You have new messages at SunCreator's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

November 2011

Black Mamba

I understand that Roger is only trying to uphold the rules and policies of Wikipedia, I think this is the 5th time I repeated this. However, the rules and policies in place aren't always the right rules for everything. I do think that it's a bit unfair that just any editor can "oppose" whatever they want in whatever subject. For all I know, half the people that "opposed" aren't even high school graduates yet (I'm not saying anyone that did oppose is, I'm just saying that this kind of scenario is possible). I think Wikipedia should have a policy wherein editors with certain educational backgrounds and expertise in certain fields (ie. toxicology and herpetology) should be the ones making the decisions in cases where there are content disputes which are relevant to their educational background and studies. Instead, we have a free-for-all policy where anyone can oppose or agree to a request. That isn't exactly what I would call "order". So you know a bit of zoology, big deal. Everyone knows the basics - tigers are the biggest cats, chimps are highly intelligent, some snakes constrict their prey and others use venom to kill, and on and on. A lot of people know the basics and some even know a little beyond that. That isn't equivalent to someone with years of college study on zoological subjects and hands on experience with wild animals. Bastian (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, why would you change the a title of a section on the Black mamba page from Geographical distribution, habitat, and status to Distribution, habitat, and status? I was trying to be specific - what is "distribution"? It could mean "distribution" (as in the action of sharing something out among a number of recipients, in this case "sharing black mamba's" - like cocaine distribution). I'm going to change it to "Geographical range, habitat, and status". Use range instead of distribution. Bastian (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care much between the choices for headers. As for the discussion, can you discuss whether the page should be moved on the merits, not the editors? That's the main point I was trying to get across there; that's the sort of thing the relevant Wikipedia rules and conventions are about. —innotata 00:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories on redirects

I notice you have been removing legitimate categories from redirects. Is there some reason for this? Since categories are effectively the indices to Wikipedia, it makes sense to include redirects where they are likely alternative titles. I can see stronger reasons for moving the category from (in that instance) Tawny-headed Swallow to Alopochelidon than vice versa, and having it present on both does no harm at all, since Alopochelidon is a genus, whereas "Tawny-headed Swallow" need not be. --Stemonitis (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the actual articles be categorised? Also, when I changed these articles, in all but three the category had been moved from the redirects where it was before to the articles, so I thought the remaining ones should be made consistent. —innotata 14:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been removing Category:Monotypic bird genera from any articles at common-name titles, and I wouldn't recommend doing so (and certainly not without prior agreement from the project). Categorising the redirects was intended to supplement the main article categorisation in this case. There are good reasons for categorising redirects, particularly in cases like this where the article title is not similar to the redirect. I agree that consistency is valuable, and I this case I think it would be appropriate to consistently apply the category to all genus-name redirects to common-name articles on monotypic genera, alongside all monotypic bird genera at scientific-name titles (currently only prehistoric taxa, I think; Sirystes seems to be interpreted as a common name). --Stemonitis (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I don't really object to both articles and redirects being categorised; I just noticed that all the others had been changed. Sirystes is a common name (the Handbook of the Birds of the World used it, without alt names, you can see the taxonomy section on the Internet Bird Collection), and I can't imagine such mistakes would go unnoticed here. —innotata 21:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Lehrer

Hi. Sorry, but I felt I had to decline your CSD:G4 deletion request for Andy Lehrer, as it did not appear to be "substantially identical to" the version deleted as a result of the October 2010 discussion. The main difference is that the latest version includes a lot more "references". I do think there's a good chance it still fails notability, but I fear it would need a new discussion. (Alternatively, if there has been a later deletion discussion of a version more similar to this one that I have missed, please let me know and I'll revisit my decision) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are not a lot more references; as far as I remember, all of the actual references (not the list of works by Lehrer) present were included in the old version (since I looked at them while the deletion discussion was going on), though there are more inline refs. The text is also very similar if not identical. So it seemed to me this meets the speedy deletion criteria. There also is nothing additional to establish notability, though this would not be enough for speedy deletion. Anyhow, I'll nominate it for deletion through AfD soon. —innotata 14:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

...for your contribution to coyote! Chrisrus (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean removing vandalism and dubious additions … I've watchlisted the page after seeing the edit war where someone was claiming that reports of coyotes eating pets are made up, but that's as far as I'll wade into such articles, I expect. Thank you for trying to improve New Guinea Singing Dog, though! —innotata 22:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mandarin Duck population

Hi, if you had translated ref you will see that the original statement about Berlin having largest population in Europe was incorrect. regards --palmiped | Talk 17:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. But you should have mentioned that instead of just saying that the reference was not in English. —innotata 22:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it clearly says that the largest population on the continent—Britain is an island—is around Berlin. —innotata 22:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you very much for the welcome, but as sometimes happens it's just me being too lazy to log in when only making minor edits. 62.107.217.35 (talk) 03:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.