User talk:Apokryltaros: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:12, 17 January 2016

/User talk:Apokryltaros Archive 1 /User talk:Apokryltaros Archive 2

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boars

Male bears are called "boars". Look here http://www.ask.com/pets-animals/male-bear-called-3da11fdefbb04141. Cheers. Dger (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) So a male bear can be called a boar-bear? And if it's cold, wet, and hungry, it would be a poor boar-bear? Corinne (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, and only if it it's being offered a fried oyster sandwich on sourdough.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(I just saw this.) Is that a "poor-boy"? So if the cold, wet boar-bear were eating one of those, would he be a poor boar-bear eating a poor-boy? Corinne (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC) Or is it a "po-boy"? Corinne (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He'd be a wet bear eating a wet sandwich.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corinne (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Samotherium major

Hello, would you be able to make another picture of Samotherium major in light of this new article reconstructing its neck posture? I'm not sure if your current image is accurate. LittleJerry (talk) 22:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@LittleJerry:, so, have the neck held a little more horizonal like an okapi's, and not as vertically as a giraffe's?--Mr Fink (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article states that Samotherium was an important transition to a giraffe-like neck. Are you sure the length is right? LittleJerry (talk) 23:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably not the correct length, either. I'll get to work making adjustments tonight.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, do you think it would better to have Samotherium compared to the giraffe and okapi in the picture? LittleJerry (talk) 23:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to work on that, too, then.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image coming along fine? LittleJerry (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{ping|LittleJerry}} Now that I've remembered to scan it, what do you think?--Mr Fink (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where is it? LittleJerry (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@LittleJerry: I knew I was forgetting something [1]: Also, S. major is in the middle, Okapi at the bottom, and Giraffe, well...--Mr Fink (talk) 01:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great! LittleJerry (talk) 02:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to work inking it, then.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. Why doesn't Samotherium have legs? LittleJerry (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It does have legs, it's just hard to see at this stage as it's behind the Okapi.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is the image finished? LittleJerry (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll scan it in later today.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ready? LittleJerry (talk) 02:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@LittleJerry: Yes, yes it is. The official artsy reason why it's uncolored is because "the markings would distract from the comparison." The unofficial reason why it's uncolored is because life-events have left me pressed for time, and a little shaky in the hand.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! LittleJerry (talk) 13:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatical number and taxa

Hi, my comment relates to this edit. At WP:PLANTS, we've discussed the grammatical number to be used with taxon names, but I can't find a discussion related to animals. The following points can easily be sourced:

The names of taxa above genus, such as families or superfamilies, are plural in Latin.
Taxon names are treated as proper names when writing in English.
In English, plural proper names require a determiner (e.g. "the"), singular proper names don't take one (hence the difference between "the Rockies" and "Etna").

The contentious issue is whether the Latin number has to be used in English. There are many sources who argue that it does; see as just one example Encyclopedia of Entomology, p. 3302. Personally, I disagree; we aren't writing Latin but English, and can choose to treat plural Latin words as collective nouns.

However, there are advantages to the plural form in some cases. Thus I much prefer the opening "The Araneoidea or araneoids are a taxon of araneomorph spiders ..." to "Araneoidea is a taxon of araneomorph spiders ...", since the former allows "araneoids" (used later in the article) to be introduced early on as a synonym. We shouldn't assume that all readers know that "-oids" is a standard transformation of "-oidea". Regardless of my view, the use of the plural can't be said to be wrong, and should not be changed unnecessarily. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I was putting Thunderclap's species (Nyctosaurus) on the cast list (it's mentioned in the plot that's on the article as well). So yeah, sorry about that. Let's keep it the way it is. Anyways I love your art, I also have since become a more mature person that what I did when I was on here arguing with you about the Australovenator-Dromaeosaurus (I highly agree with you now, although the BBC site claims that the Polar Allosaur was indeed the former, but it could likely be wrong). Anyways have a good December. 73.240.105.185 (talk) 15:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words and understanding: it's important that we try to avoid fan-identification, as that is WP:Original Research.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miniopterus aelleni

Hello, Apokryltaros -- I saw a number of red links in the section Miniopterus aelleni#Taxonomy. I thought you might know of articles or sections of articles to which these terms could be linked. Corinne (talk) 03:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I opted to unlink "divergence" and replace it with "sequence divergence," the others are of topics that have yet to be made into articles yet (Faune being a Madagascar-themed biology science journal, and the other two being scientists).--Mr Fink (talk) 03:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. Thanks! Corinne (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's that time of year....

Christmas tree worm, (Spirobranchus gigantic)
	Time To Spread Some Happy Holiday Cheer!!
	I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree* in the spirit of the season.* What's especially nice about the digitized version is that it doesn't need water, and it won't catch fire.
	Wishing you a joyous holiday season... ...and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉
	Atsme^📞📧 15:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]	Pure pun-ishment. [2]

I wonder if there are red and green Christmas tree worms.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About the piscivore page

Hello Mr. Apokryltaros; happy new year and Christmas !

I see the spinosauroids on the piscivore page; but The spinosauroids weren't obligate piscivores; as the iguanadon remains in a Baryonyx and a teeth belonged to a spinosauroid were found in the fossil records; so the spinosauroid diet is very similar to the alligator and seal you mentioned\write; may I delete the Baryonyx an Spinosaurus from the piscivores category but write them on the extinct piscivores as; spinosauroids were known to consume fish but from the fossil records its estimated that their diet consist any prey aviable or similar to alligators ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dredann (talk • contribs) 15:25, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simply because Baryonyx and Spinosaurus were not obligate piscivores does not mean we should remove them from the list of prehistoric and extinct piscivores, especially since there is undeniable evidence of them eating fish in the first place. [3]--Mr Fink (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean that; I meant I would write and note they had fish on their diet but that does not consist their almost entire diet like gharials. I meant some example like this : Some of the extinct animals, such as the spinosauroids, are not completely piscivorous, often preying on aquatic invertebrates or land animals in addition to fish.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3665537/ http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065295 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dredann (talk • contribs) 20:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The rule about posting only obligate piscivores applies primarily to extant piscivores, so that that list does not become a long and cluttered mess mentioning every single living animal that won't pass up a fish dinner. Again, simply because the spinosaurids were not obligate piscivores does not mean they don't deserve to be on the list of prehistoric piscivores, especially since there is notable evidence of their piscivorous habits in the first place.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should bring this up at the talk page.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay than; I continue at that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dredann (talk • contribs) 11:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About that edit

Okay so I said that the sauropod in the movie "One Million Years B.C." was a Brontosaurus, so I know it got reverted, but the movie's trailer and a book about Ray Harryhausen confirms that it's a Brontosaurus, not an Apatosaurus (although Brontosaurus was a synonym of Apatosaurus at the time). Also the article for the original film the movie was based off of (I mean the 1940 film with Lon Chaney Jr.) claims that the rams in the movie were muskoxen. Is there a source for that (the movie never states that they are muskox and they appear to be sheep, not bovines)? --73.240.105.185 (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a source that says this? If "yes," then please source it. If "no," then please stop making unsourced edits or risk the consequences.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright

I found a source, so would I just have to put it in the summary or show it to you first? Also would someone put it in the references (like I don't think a regular user can, but an admin I believe can)? Thanks for the help. But is there a source that says that the ram-like animals in "One Million B.C." (1940) says that they are muskoxen (that bugs me still)? --73.240.105.185 (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not show it on Talk:One Million Years B.C., first, so everyone can check and make sure, first?--Mr Fink (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --73.240.105.185 (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carcinology

Best wishes for a Happy, Healthy 2016! I've just learned a few new words that I had never heard before, including malacology, carcinology, and cirripedology. Corinne (talk) 03:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mazel tov, and conchology to you and yours.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Redlichiidae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Xela (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mesozoic

I was just looking at the article on the Mesozoic era, and I was surprised to see an image with this caption: "Inaccurately portrayed Stegosaurus". What is the point or the educational benefit of including an image that inaccurately portrays an ancient reptile? Are there any images of Stegosaurus that more accurately illustrate the animal? Corinne (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we should replace it with more accurate pictures, and leave the archaic reconstructions to the animal's "In Popular Culture" section.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, O.K. Good. Corinne (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mammutidae

Apokryltaros, what's the difference between a mammoth and a mastondon? Is Mammutidae the main article about mastondons? If so, isn't it a little skimpy? Corinne (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mammoths are any true elephant species of the genus Mammuthus, whereas mastodons are any proboscidean of the family Mammutidae, especially those of the genus Mammut.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Piscivore Page

Hello Mr.Apokryltaros; I don understand why you rechange the piscivore page but I fixed my changes with sources this time. Please don't rechange the page. There are direct evidence that proves Baryonyx wasn't an obligate piscivore and spinosaurus obligate aquaticness is really a debated subject especially after the sigilmassasaurus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dredann (talk • contribs) 17:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the way you word the mentioning that Baryonyx and Spinosaurus were not obligate piscivores introduces WP:Weasel words that make it confusing to the reader.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I linked were trustable; not false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dredann (talk • contribs) 22:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you used were blogs and children's books. It would help if you used science journals as sources. That, and I never said your sources were false.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Its true. But may I also add legitimate scientific sources?

http://blog.everythingdinosaur.co.uk/blog/_archives/2008/05/31/the-thumb-claw-of-baryonyx.html my.abdodigital.com › abdodig › download https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=7t9M5TsmjOUC&pg=PA214&lpg=PA214&dq=baryonyx+iguanodon+remains&source=bl&ots=0GGnTh2WDa&sig=STauGD_uL_280MYhjvxB7Gpcwpc&hl=tr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-8_TJ-7HKAhUFlSwKHXrbCcw4ChDoAQgjMAY#v=onepage&q=baryonyx%20iguanodon%20remains&f=false

-Dredann