User talk:Ucucha

Archives

Leave a new message

Peer review newsletter #1[edit]

Introduction[edit]

Hello to all! I do not intend to write a regular peer review newsletter but there does occasionally come a time when those interested in contributing to peer review should be contacted, and now is one. I've mailed this out to everyone on the peer review volunteers list, and some editors that have contributed to past discussions. Apologies if I've left you off or contacted you and you didn't want it. Next time there is a newsletter / mass message it will be opt in (here), I'll talk about this below - but first:

THANK YOU! I want to thank you for your contributions and for volunteering on the list to help out at peer review. Thank you!
Peer review is useful! It's good to have an active peer review process. This is often the way that we help new or developing editors understand our ways, and improve the quality of their editing - so it fills an important and necessary gap between the teahouse (kindly introduction to our Wikiways) and GA and FA reviews (specific standards uphelp according to a set of quality criteria). And we should try and improve this process where possible (automate, simplify) so it can be used and maintained easily.

Updates[edit]

It can get quite lonely tinkering with peer review...

With a bit of effort we can renovate the place to look like this!

Update #1: the peer review volunteers list is changing[edit]

The list is here in case you've forgotten: WP:PRV. Kadane has kindly offered to create a bot that will ping editors on the volunteers list with unanswered reviews in their chosen subject areas every so often. You can choose the time interval by changing the "contact" parameter. Options are "never", "monthly", "quarterly", "halfyearly", and "annually". For example:

{{PRV|JohnSmith|History of engineering|contact=monthly}} - if placed in the "History" section, JohnSmith will receive an automatic update every month about unanswered peer reviews relating to history.
{{PRV|JaneSmith|Mesopotamian geography, Norwegian fjords|contact=annually}} - if placed in the "Geography" section, JaneSmith will receive an automatic update every yearly about unanswered peer reviews in the geography area.

We can at this stage only use the broad peer review section titles to guide what reviews you'd like, but that's better than nothing! You can also set an interest in multiple separate subject areas that will be updated at different times.

Update #2: a (lean) WikiProject Peer review[edit]

I don't think we need a WikiProject with a giant bureaucracy nor all sorts of whiz-bang features. However over the last few years I've found there are times when it would have been useful to have a list of editors that would like to contribute to discussions about the peer review process (e.g. instructions, layout, automation, simplification etc.). Also, it can get kind of lonely on the talk page as I am (correct me if I'm wrong) the only regular contributor, with most editors moving on after 6 - 12 months.

So, I've decided to create "WikiProject Peer review". If you'd like to contribute to the WikiProject, or make yourself available for future newsletters or contact, please add yourself to the list of members.

Update #3: advertising[edit]

We plan to do some advertising of peer review, to let editors know about it and how to volunteer to help, at a couple of different venues (Signpost, Village pump, Teahouse etc.) - but have been waiting until we get this bot + WikiProject set up so we have a way to help interested editors make more enduring contributions. So consider yourself forewarned!

And... that's it!

I wish you all well on your Wikivoyages, Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Saadanius[edit]

Saadanius has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you![edit]

Thanks for writing Nsungwepithecus! 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 14:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to drag you back into the world of lemurs...[edit]

I hope you've been well. I'm glad to see that you've remained active with Wikipedia, unlike me. Anyway, sorry for the long silence. I'm writing because I started a topic on WP:Animals, and I would appreciate your professional input. It even makes brief mention of you and our work debunking the myth behind the etymology of the word "lemur."

True to my style, the post is long-winded. Sorry about that. Anyway, I'd love to hear from you. —Maky (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great to hear from you, hope you are doing well! I responded to the topic. I feel these made-up collective terms are a nuisance and I want to ignore them as much as possible.

These days I mostly work on my own database. The rules around synthesis, no original research, verifiability, etc. are probably part of the reason I don't write as much on Wikipedia any more. Those rules are sensible and for an enterprise at Wikipedia's scale there probably is no good alternative to them, but I like the freedom to follow my own judgment in an area I know well. Ucucha (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Camelini, Nordmann, 1850 citation[edit]

Hello, I noticed that you added the reference "Nordmann, 1850" to the Camelini page a while back. Do you know what that full citation might be? I am trying to trace it back to a full source. Thanks! Ambuser (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to this edit? Looks like I only moved the citation to the right field; I wasn't the one to add it. It appears in the very first version of the page.

I looked in my database and the only Nordmann 1850 is Thalassictis, a fossil hyena. I think what happened is that the original author copied the taxobox from our article on Thalassictis and incorrectly kept that line in (notice the first version also has "T. robusta", the type species of Thalassictis). I dutifully moved the authority to the right taxobox field without checking it, and now 14 years later it's still there. It's even crept back into the scientific literature.

McKenna & Bell (1997) attribute the name of the tribe to Gray (1821), so I'll correct our article. Ucucha (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see now that you only moved that existing comment. My apologies. I don't know if that reference to Gray (1821) is correct. I couldn't find a mention of Camelini in that particular text: https://archive.org/details/s0id11783780/page/306/mode/2up Ambuser (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gray named Camelidae, and by the Principle of Coordination in the Code that means he is also deemed to have named all other ranks of family-group names based on Camelus.

The first author to have actually used the name Camelini to my knowledge is Webb (1965). Webb, S.D. 1965. The osteology of _Camelops_. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Science Bulletin 1:1-54.

Ucucha (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]