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.

August 2010

A German paper

In case you have not seen this http://www.zfmk.de/BZB/B49_H1_4/B49H1413.PDF ? Shyamal (talk) 03:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it, but I don't really know German; I think the HBW and Anderson have something of an explanation of the paper. —innotata 14:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to assist with the German if necessary. Ucucha 14:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to make of the study yet; it looks like there's too much to be translated. Perhaps you could see what the German discussion/summary toward the end says about relations in Passer, and what the methods Stephan used were, summed up. —innotata 14:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He looks at the plumage pattern of the head and the "Kleingefieder" (the plumage on the back? perhaps you recognize the part of the bird figures in the 2nd plate). He states that the evolution of passerids started in Africa, where they split into a montane group (Montifringilla), an arid-adapted group (Petronia), and a group that lived in light forests (Passer). He further divides Passer into three groups: Graukopf ("gray head"; males and females almost the same color), Grauscheitel ("gray part", with "part" in the meaning of "dividing line in the hair"), and Braunkopf ("brown head"; brown part, superciliary stripe reduced). He goes on at great length about the plumage and about the phylogenetic relations within Passer—too complex to summarize, I'm afraid. There is actually an English summary at the end (p. 69). Ucucha 18:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That should be enough. The brown-crown/grey-crown idea is interesting, though quite different from Summers-Smith's less objective taxonomy, and molecular phylogenies. —innotata 00:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IUCN

Hi. I noticed your edit to {{IUCN/sandbox}}. I think the work parameter in {{cite web}} is often misused. There is some history to it but, basically, I just don't like the italics. I would be please if you would like to discuss this or any other thoughts at Template talk:IUCN. I added error checking to the version in the sandbox. –droll [chat] 03:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added it to the main template after testing. See what Template:Cite web has to say about this—the work is usually the website, as here. I don't think not liking the italics is a very good reason not to use a similar style for citing websites as to print sources. —innotata 15:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are mistaken about the use of the work parameter. I don't think there is any precedent for italicizing the name of a data set. Anyway, I think that we are barking up the wrong tree. I'm going to take this up at Template talk:Citation/core which is transcluded by {{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, etc. I hope you join the discussion there. Please do not modify this template again until the problem is resolved. At least discuss it first. This is to trivial a matter to war about. 06:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to start the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources instead. I think it's a better forum. –droll [chat] 06:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I decided not to discuss this elsewhere. I changed the template used for the back end from cite web to cite database which I wrote and will be useful for any citation template that cites information in a database. Cite web expects the name of a web page. I think it's a stretch to say that a taxon is the name of a page. Secondly I think the name of a data set is not the same as the name as a book. If you disagree let's talk about it here. –droll [chat] 07:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I disagree, and I do not understand the cite database template—it seems to be redundant to the cite web template, but uses a different formatting because of personal preference, rather than the standardisation that the citation templates are largely for. While websites such as the IUCN Red List are not the same as books, it makes sense to consider them works in the same manner as periodicals, encyclopædias, etc., as has been done so far; I also don't see how the IUCN Red List is exactly a data set. It seems you are making a good deal too much of your unexplained personal preference, to me. I think the appropriate forum right now would be the cite web talk page. —innotata 17:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before I started working on the template, it did not use {{cite web}}. It used external link formatting. This was the case when you edited the template on 30 January 2010. I was the one who introduced the use of cite web as a back end. It was a mistake.

Cite web is does to establish a universal accepted method for citing sources. That's why there are other citation templates. Most use {{citation/core}} as a back end. That template offers two title parameters. The {{{Title}}} parameter (which cite web changes to {{{work}}}) is intended to be used when citing the title of a book. A database is not a book. I know of no precedent which requires that the name of data set be be italicized. The {{{IncludedWorkTitle}}} (which cite web changes to {{{title}}}) is intended to be used when citing a chapter. A record in a database in not the same as a chapter.

I think your problem began only when I started using {{cite web}}. You seem to think that it sets a standard for citing information on the web. The web has evolved. Information is served in a more dynamic fashion. I do not believe that cite web can serve as the the universal tool for citing information on the internet.

I do not agree that the Template talk:Cite web would be an appropriate forum. More latter. –droll [chat] 19:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can this be discussed at some talk page, one broader than those of the particular templates? Why weren't these changes discussed to begin with? —innotata 19:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on for a day. I've asked a knowledgeable user to comment. If he doesn't have the time then let's take it some where else. –droll [chat] 22:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but seeing how much you're changing, you should have brought this up and stated your opinion before making changes. —innotata 23:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you bring this up soon? Perhaps at Wikipedia talk:Citation templates. —innotata 14:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saxaul Sparrow

The photo File:Saxaul Sparrow.jpg was taken somewhere between Almaty and Lake Balkhash.--Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 08:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —innotata 15:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Italic titles

You raise a very important point of wide application on this page. Pursuing a Wikipedia-wide implementation of correct italic titles has been languishing on my to-do list and is unfortunately something that intimidates me and has no prospects of moving off that list in the foreseeable future. So, if you or the projects you're affiliated with have the ability to bring it up for other book-related fields Wikipedia-wide, well, it would be a great good. In any case, thanks for addressing this at all! Wareh (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Passer predomesticus

On 16 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Passer predomesticus, which you created or substantially expanded. 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.

Courcelles 18:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diuca finch

Hi Innotata: You just replaced the Common Diuca-finch photo with another, sharper one — but the leg and bill color on the new picture are definitely not correct! Whoever mounted the specimen for the museum made the bill and legs yellow, rather than the grayish-black they should be (at least according to every field guide I have and every one I've ever seen). We should probably look for another photo! MeegsC | Talk 01:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice. It looks like unless we find an image (I haven't found anything on Flickr etc.) the museum image with an explanatory caption would be best. —innotata 14:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Will you please stop edit warring on the House sparrow article? I try to improve the article but every time i change anything you come along shortly afterwards and change most of it back to the original version. "Animal food" is food that is fed to animals such as dog meat or rabbit pellets - "live food" is a more accurate and unambiguous term. Richerman (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Animal food makes sense to me; I wouldn't understand what "live food" would mean in this context. I know the article needs to be improved, but in a few cases (not most), as here, you've been making the article vaguer. I'm also copyediting unrelated bits and removing the two or three spaces in the middle of sentences you keep adding. —innotata

I don't think I'm making anything vague at all - where do you mean? Live food is a commonly used term - although I hadn't thought to link it because I thought it was obvious. A google search for "animal food" comes up with all sorts of things - mostly animal feed suppliers. I don't mind you correcting any mistakes I make but when I join a couple of sentences to get rid of one that's very short I don't expect it to be changed back again within minutes as in this diff, however, maybe that was inadvertent so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Richerman (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how a term for "living food for carnivorous or omnivorous animals kept in captivity" belongs in an article about a sparrow; I didn't know what the term meant, and animal food makes perfect sense as far as I can tell in this context. I don't know if the change you mentioned (if it is the one I'm thinking of from your diff) was inadvertent; certainly your sentence looks rather long, if the previous situation was something too short. —innotata 01:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the definition in the article has been somewhat skewed by those who feed live food to their pets, but lots of suppliers sell "live food" for feeding to garden birds. However, as you're obviously determined to have it you own way I'm not going to carry on flogging a dead horse and it's way past my bedtime. Richerman (talk) 01:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've since changed the sentence entirely. —innotata 01:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Sind Sparrow

On 29 August 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sind Sparrow, which you created or substantially expanded. 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.

The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

New DNB WikiProject

For information: I have set up Wikipedia:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography, since the time has certainly come when there should be a place for collective discussion of the DNB adaptation effort. Please come and participate. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parrot-billed Sparrow

Hello, I followed the image title. It's fixed, thanks for your attention and your help. Totodu74 (talk) 13:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you need to be much, much more careful when uploading old illustrations to Commons. You just uploaded tow images which are still probably in copyright which I uploaded here; most of the old images you uploaded have completely insufficient information on copyright. —innotata 14:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Damned, I used Commons Helper and supposed the program would warnig me if the licence wasn't suitable. Apparently not. Thank you to have launch the speedy deletion but the file can't receive the {{PD-US}} (or PD-1923) licence? Totodu74 (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know exactly what you mean by the last bit, but Commons files must be public domain in the source country and in the US, en.wikipedia files only in the US. The file said clearly "Do not move this file to Commons" —innotata 14:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erf, I've got it: Shelley's book was published in England x| Sorry for my clumsiness! Totodu74 (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lehrer

I don't doubt what you say is true - but that's not enough, it needs a source. Dramedy Tonight (talk) 03:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:DNB

See Template talk:DNB#More features Done. -- PBS (talk) 11:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 2010

Alberta squirrel

Do you remember why you identified this squirrel as Sciurus? There are apparently no Sciurus species in Alberta, and I don't see why it can't be a Tamiasciurus. Ucucha 13:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And another one—you removed the Tamias rufus ID from this chipmunk. From Kays and Wilson, it seems the only other plausible candidate is Neotamias minimus, but that one has a gray tail, not brownish as in N. rufus. Ucucha 13:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right about the ID. For the first, I have a (rough) map showing the Eastern grey squirrel as occurring in Alberta or near there; for the second, somebody added it as the "best category" without changing the description and I thought it needed confirmation, which I think you've given. —innotata 16:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I put the face in a Sciurinae cat and said that it is possibly T. hudsonicus. I may be deceiving myself, but I think it also looks more like Tamiasciurus, which seems to have a more clearly marked eye-ring than S. carolinensis. (And of course, even though S. carolinensis perhaps occurs marginally in Alberta, T. hudsonicus certainly has a wide distribution there.) I also put the chipmunk in the T. rufus category and explained the ID. Ucucha 19:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goose stuff

I found some of Banks' review online [1]. It is most disparaging of Hanson, so I thought it would be best to quote it here so as not to append material permanently to the Canada Goose article. Anyway, I have bolded some of what Banks says:

I am astonished that I, a non-expert, guessed correctly that the splitting was seriously problematic. Given this, I cannot support stinking up the article with this material. Hanson himself probably would not support all these species and subspecies if he was still alive and in possession of all his faculties. Abductive (reasoning) 20:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how you still think Hanson's being impersonated or somewhat. But I suppose this doesn't matter that much, at least until the article is better in general, and can well be removed. —innotata 20:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice the thing about the editor, but I don't think there's anything about him being dead. He was alive and publishing just a decade or so ago. Also, I think we might want to delete or remove your extra long quote; not sure this is OK as far as copyright. —innotata 20:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying Hanson's being impersonated, but I would say that his book doesn't seem to be a reliable source. Abductive (reasoning) 22:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and remove the quote. Abductive (reasoning) 22:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sure don't see how the book is not a reliable source. It makes a strange argument, but I can't imagine Hanson is falsifying anything. I'll remove the quote with this edit; it can be deleted if needed. —innotata 14:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:DerekHillTory.jpg

Replied at my Commons talk, but you'll need to inform the original uploader and/or get an admin here to undelete the local copy so that the original description could be checked. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know exactly what information is needed, but the uploader on en.wp, Brendandh (talk · contribs), put the following text on the description page:

== Summary == Tory Island from Tor More. Derek Hill. Oil. 1958 == Licensing == {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}

Ucucha 21:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's absurd. The painting is said to be by Derek Hill (painter), who died in 2000, so there is little chance of this being free use. —innotata 14:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to genus

Pachyhynobius shangchengensis should be renamed to Pachyhynobius. I didn't name this article, but I noticed it. cheers, Bruinfan12 (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, though I don't know why you told me. We'll have to ask an admin. —innotata 17:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ucucha 17:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"ask"? Make that "think of", the way you act! Forgive me for calling you a bot, you're a genie. —innotata 17:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meetup

In the area? You're invited to the
May 2018 Minnesota User Group Meeting

	Date: 31 October 2010
	Time: noon
	Place: Midtown Exchange Global Market, East Lake Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 44°56′57″N 93°15′40″W / 44.9493°N 93.2612°W / 44.9493; -93.2612

You have a reply at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fishes#What do you think about making an Outline of fishes?

Commons

I've just gotten started working at commons and I've uploaded a couple of files there, but now they are in 2 places. There seems to be a particular technique for moving something to commons and keeping the wikipedia links intact. Is there a script or step-by-step somewhere on how to do that? I was not able to find it readily in the FAQ's, or didn't know what I should be looking for. Thank you! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Have you seen Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons? I think CommonsHelper may be what you need. Smartse (talk) 19:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Just what I was going to point to, though I don't know quite what you're looking for. CommonsHelper is very useful and not complicated to use, but it does make a mess of a lot of file descriptions. I didn't know I had any talk page stalkers other than Ucucha (though that's nothing special). —innotata 19:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind! I think you're the only person I've ever welcomed who has actually made decent contributions so stalking you doesn't seem creepy. Smartse (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your page was not on my watch list. I noticed that an image I was watching had just been moved to commons, and figured you would be a likely victim, er, candidate for asking this question. :) Since I would only be moving personal photos, I think I can skip that scary script and simply re-upload it at commons - and then add the missing piece, which was the NCD template. Should I delete it from wikipedia, though, once it's in commons? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Re Baseball Bugs: I've just transferred your most recent upload at the English Wikipedia using CommonsHelper (File:Metrodome signage 2010.JPG). Transferring via CommonsHelper and including original upload info is massively preferable, especially if the images were uploaded here a while ago. And yes, files are deleted once they are moved to Commons (though it should be checked whether all information was transferred).

Re Smartse: I just found it odd—amusing. —innotata 19:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you tag them for speedy deletion and then they get zapped by some automated or semi-automated function, yes? Now, if I were to upload a file only to commons, wikipedia can find it without doing anything special, right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You tag them for speedy deletion with {{subst:ncd}}, and they get deleted eventually, hopefully after somebody checks to see if all information on the description has been transferred to Commons. Yes, files uploaded to Commons can be found easily: by searching on Wikipedia, even. —innotata 20:08, 29 October 2010 (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.