User talk:Ucucha/Archive17

Archives

Leave a new message

DYK for Ungual tuft[edit]

On April 8, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ungual tuft, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your 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.

Ucucha 00:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fox Squirrel[edit]

Can you move this page now, as Saukkomies has changed the lead to sentence case? By the way, what was it that made him burst out above; I don't want to read those huge blocks of text. If he doesn't want to coöperate, it will be hard to work on the tree squirrel articles without setting off disputes. Do you think the lead at leopard is decent enough for GA or FA? I can improve most of the article, but I don't think I'll be able to do much with this bit. —innotata 19:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fox squirrel is not the only article changed to sentence case by Saukkomies, without the article being moved. —innotata 19:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was about this edit of mine; I reverted his change in citation style. He considers this to have been an improvement and thinks that I am arrogant because I did not discuss before reverting; I think his change was a unilateral style change that guidelines disapprove of (apart from a few other problems I noted above).

The lead of leopard seems to be on the short side, and it's missing information from some of the sections. However, I'm not sure the hybrids merit their own section; they're only a biological curiosity.

I moved the fox squirrel, and might move some more if necessary. Ucucha 20:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the lead at leopard is short? As for the other pages with text changed to sentence case by Saukkomies, there are plenty of them, those with the edit summary "rewording opening paragraph, per standardized practice (see WikiProject:Rodents/talk". Many probably belong at scientific names; most, recently, are South American.

By the way, can you tell me what you think about the progress of House Sparrow ? I think it is getting too detailed, or at least that there is little of larger trends in the species. I don't see this article being FA quality for some time, and I think it will be rather too large, or else not detailed enough. I think I might only bring it to GA grade—if I do so I might still be able to bring three-quarters of the Passer species to FA grade. I'll also ask at WT:BIRD, but I think I'll mostly just get questions about things that haven't been included yet. —innotata 18:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think so; the leopard is a big topic that can have a pretty long lead. I'll find time to move a couple of squirrels someday.

Well-studied species like the house sparrow are more difficult, and I don't have much experience with them (the marsh rice rat comes closest, but is not that well-studied). What you might try to do is creating subarticles on behavior, anatomy, and/or taxonomy, so that the main page stays manageable while the details don't get lost. Ucucha 21:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I never thought about making subarticles, and I've never paid attention to any or thought they had any use, except those for the very largest topics. I don't know how much use they'd be; only the various sections of behaviour would look like full-size articles to me (though if I split behaviour, the other sections would look large). So I'm unenthusiastic about that suggestion. —innotata 21:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I won't subarticle this. The only other organism articles with many subarticles are still larger topics, like cat. Speaking of cat, I don't think it will be larger than that article if kept as one article, so it should be OK. —innotata 21:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made parasites of the marsh rice rat; integrating that into the main article would have made it very imbalanced. Visionholder is also creating loads of subarticles for lemur. But I can see your arguments against it. I'm afraid I can't be of much help otherwise; you should probably use reviews and secondary sources to cover the main trends of the species and use primary studies mostly to fill in small gaps. Ucucha 21:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll just go for GA, unless a reviewer is sure the article can go for FA. The other Passer species will be much easier to write about; most are as well known as the three you've seen. Nice of you to create that parasite article; I'm not creating a "parasites of the House Sparrow" article—I'm not a bot, yet. —innotata 21:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not even complete; I found a source that lists nearly twice as many nematodes. They're interesting, though: I might try to take a few to GA or FA. A nematode that infects the hispid cotton rat and Oryzomys gorgasi is actually in some use as a model organism for nematode diseases in humans. Ucucha 21:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, did you also notice that article titles are no longer italicized (for example Skrjabinoclava kinsellai)? Ucucha 21:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)The common parasites of the House Sparrow are pretty interesting too, though I haven't created many articles for them, yet. I don't know much (scarcely anything) about such parasites, but maybe some will turn up at DYK. —innotata 21:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't notice that. When did it change? —innotata 21:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither did I know anything about rice rat parasites, but I'm starting to learn. I wonder how many of those have gone extinct with Oryzomys antillarum, Oryzomys nelsoni, and Oryzomys peninsulae. The change happened today; presumably some developer is playing with the feature. Ucucha 21:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Skrjabinoclava kinsellai[edit]

On April 9, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Skrjabinoclava kinsellai, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your 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) 14:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of mammalian dental topography[edit]

I guess I'm proud of you, but at the same time, think about what you could have done to make the world a better place while you were describing the little teeth of little rodents. Where's the poetry in it? Or, why not add a "Rodent teeth in popular culture" section, just to show that you're not one-sided? I'm sure MScientist would help you write it. Drmies (talk) 21:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After writing that rice rats are cute, I think I have fulfilled my human interest quota for a while. But little teeth of little rodents are interesting and I've studied them a lot; many extinct species are known only from molars, so we need all those terms (and more). Ucucha 21:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, those human interactions, that's a start, I'll grant you that. I can't help but think, though, that that section is not necessarily informed by a profound reading of Blake, who has plenty to say on the effects of "progress" (scientific and otherwise) on humanity. But, it's Friday afternoon, and like a good Liberal Arts person, I'll have another cocktail (nr. 3), this one in honor of Helen Vendler. (How about making that an FA?) Drmies (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps after all rodents and their parasites have become FAs. Blake? I still remember some lines of his from English class in the gymnasium: "I was angry with my friend. / I told it not, my wrath did grow." and "Tiger, tiger, burning bright / In the forests of the night." I know he has produced some more profound poetry than that. He never wrote about rice rats, though, I think, which greatly decreases the value of his poetry. Ucucha 22:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Touche. But you know there is life after Vestdijk, speaking of teeth. A weird introduction to Blake, perfect for a student clinging to rodents as a metaphorical rudder, is Dead Man. I remember going to see Jim Jarmusch movies on the Leidseplein. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Oryzomys couesi[edit]

On April 10, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Oryzomys couesi, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your 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) 09:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subfossil lemur[edit]

Since the section heading has been deleted, why don't you go ahead and delete the Subfossil lemur redirect. I hope to start on it beginning Sunday, so it shouldn't remain a red link for long. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish... but it could as well stay a redirect for the time being; you'll be able to put the real article in its place just as easily. Ucucha 23:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really 100% either way. The subheading is gone, so there's nothing definitive to link to. At the same time, I would also like to get credit for creating the page... especially with how much work is going to go into it. Anyway, leave it if you want. I'm really not sure what's best to do. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You created the redirect too, so that shouldn't matter. But I deleted it anyway on your request (WP:CSD#G7). The section it linked to was gone anyway, so the redirect was not of much use. Ucucha 01:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ganoga Lake[edit]

	<font=3> Thanks again for checking the links and dabs and fixing the dashes. Ganoga Lake is now a featured article! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hrshkvtzaol.com[edit]

If there are any blanks I can fill in, you can contact this non-wiki savvy No. 1 son Michael at the above email address. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrshkvtz (talk • contribs) 01:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Your father was an interesting scientist and User:Sasata and planning to develop the article on him further. I will let you know when I have any questions. Best regards, Ucucha 01:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

barnstar[edit]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your incredible dedication and impeccable scrutiny of my GAC/FACs. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. Without those reviews, I'd never have known what the range in skull length of Mesopropithecus is, or the history of the term "lemur". :-) Searching LexisNexis about Lemur Kingdom/Street was also fun. I got several articles with previews of how the "Graveyard Gang" would do this and this—all sounding quite ridiculous. Without the reviews I do, I would certainly become quite a single-minded rat specialist here, which can't be good. Ucucha 00:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you ever feel like coming down to Durham, North Carolina, let me know and I'll look into giving you a tour at the Duke Lemur Center. They are interesting animals to watch. – VisionHolder « talk » 11:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great; I'll think of it when I ever come there. Ucucha 11:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Megapedetes[edit]

On April 12, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Megapedetes, 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 10:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar of lumpiness...[edit]

Ha! Now that I got your attention, I would —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meat lumps (talk • contribs)

Thanks. Pity you'll have to find something else to do now. Ucucha 17:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch Birding paper[edit]

Do you think you could see that Dutch Birding paper on the Saxaul Sparrow in Iran? If it even describes, for instance, their flock size, it will be worth using. Thanks, —innotata 17:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we have it. I'll take a look. Ucucha 17:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

War of the Bavarian Succession again[edit]

would you mind chiming in on this nomination? Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I have time—I've been pretty busy lately. Ucucha 17:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Information[edit]

I recently learned how to add information to Wikipedia, so I practiced enlarging some stub articles. Recently, I checked them and saw that it said that your user reverted them back to their original form, without my information. I was wondering if I did anything wrong, and if so, how should I add information correctly in the future. Another question, how do you add images to articles?

Varun Mangalick (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned on your talk page, this was because the text was directly copied from online sources. Wikipedia cannot accept such text; you must (with some exceptions) write everything yourself. See the text below the edit window for more information.

You can add images with the following example code:

[[File:Oryzomys palustris in vegetation.jpg|thumb|[[Marsh rice rat]] (''Oryzomys palustris'')|alt=Gray-brown rat]]

This produces the image I placed next to this thread. When you want to include another image, you have to put the file name in the first part of the line, and the caption and alt text in the other appropriate places. See Help:Files for more information. You can also include an image directly in the taxobox, as at cockatoo, which has the lines

| image = Eolophus roseicapilla -Wamboin, NSW, Australia -adult-8-2cp.jpg
| image_caption = Galah in Australia
| image_alt = Cockatoo perching on a branch. Its plumage on the top of its head above its eyes is white and it has a horn-coloured beak. The rest of its head, its neck, and most of its front are pink. Its wings and tail are grey.

in its wikitext; this produces the image you see in the top right corner of that page. Ucucha 20:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rat squad[edit]

Congratulations on your nice location on the front page. I couldn't help but notice, though, that the administrative rat squad deals out rat blocks like they're candy. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think it's the article of mine that is most deserving of the spot. The vandals there have been rather unoriginal so far; this one was at least marginally more amusing, and this accomplished editor even provided informative edit summaries. Ucucha 03:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, the Obama edit wasn't bad. When he was running against McCain, my daughter (she's 4 now) rooted for Obama. When I asked him why he was nice, she thought for a moment and said "because he doesn't hit someone." Of course, she's not editing Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found the armadillo edit more enlightening; the Obama one seemed rather unsure about its own points. I now know what I need the next time you encounter a dragon, although a mylagaulid may be even more effective. Ucucha 03:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, enlightening indeed. Attacking unicorns, though, that's silly--anyone who has read The Once and Future King knows that. BTW, did you consider handing out a barnstar for this one? It doesn't even need verification, as far as I'm concerned. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on the TFA[edit]

As the heading says, congrats on the TFA. Keep up the good work! – VisionHolder « talk » 13:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I certainly will keep writing—yet somehow I think most other FAs I write are less likely to be picked as TFA. :) Ucucha 14:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Lyperosomum intermedium[edit]

On April 15, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lyperosomum intermedium, 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:babel[edit]

Hello U, You may like to adapt the "Wikibabel" to your particlar language levels.

Wikipedia:Babel

de-3

Dieser Benutzer hat sehr gute Deutschkenntnisse.

en-4

This user can contribute with a near-native level of English.

fr-2

Cet utilisateur peut contribuer avec un niveau intermédiaire en français.

es-1

Este usuario puede contribuir con un nivel básico de español.

la-1

Hic usor simplici latinitate contribuere potest.

nl

Deze gebruiker heeft het Nederlands als moedertaal.

Search user languages

. Add those that are missing. Peter Horn User talk 02:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. I had it for a while, but found it unnecessary; the text I have on my userpage works as well. Ucucha 10:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Iravan/archive1[edit]

Thanks for checking the disambig of the article. If there are other problems you see, please let me know. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BBOC paper[edit]

Many thanks for the offer to help find the BP Hall paper on Hemipus picatus. In case you can find it, you can either make the notes from that paper directly to the wiki article or mail me the info. In case you can take photos of the relevant pages, that would work too. Thanks again. Shyamal (talk) 09:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll probably get to it this Friday. It's apparently not in the main library, but I think I'll be able to get it. Most likely I'll either scan the pages or make notes. Ucucha 11:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Shyamal (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updates[edit]

The whole capitalisation thing has spread to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#WP:BIRD and the Effort to Capitalize "Rhesus Macaques". I didn't think much would happen, but there are two proposals you may want to comment on. I've also given some more thought to splitting House Sparrow; I've asked the bird project for feedback on how much detail is needed. —innotata 22:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw it, but don't feel the need to comment, not yet at least. I hope you'll get some good advice on the sparrow. Did you get the Saxaul Sparrow paper I e-mailed you? Ucucha 22:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just got the paper. Thanks—there was at least one thing noteworthy, the first breeding record in Iran. I'm guessing there's a good deal more known about the Saxaul Sparrow now, but most papers about it are published in Russian. From something turned up while searching Google I gather that a Mongolian chap got a grant to study the Saxaul Sparrow's breeding eight years ago. Hopefully the Handbook of the Birds of the World, if I ever get to see it, will have something! —innotata 23:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marsh rice rat[edit]

Marsh rice rat I traced 0.23 ha (0.51 ha) to 0.37 ha (0.81 acre) to your "Revision as of 2010-03-28T03:11:10". The use uf the template 0.23 to 0.37 hectares (0.57 to 0.91 acres) rather than your own calculator would have avoided this anomaly in the first place. Peter Horn User talk 22:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used the template; I always first type it out in the wikitext and then replace it with its result in the preview before saving. I must have mistyped. I'll be more careful with that from now on. Ucucha 22:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Q6[edit]

Could you hint why this (just for me to understand). Materialscientist (talk) 11:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Negative BLP hook. I commented at T:TDYK#Cecil Alexander. Ucucha 11:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm .. I have no feeling to this hook, but how that critique on a flag design could be overly negative? Materialscientist (talk) 11:51, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The hook is basically ... that Alexander designed a very crappy flag? That's clearly negative, I think. But please comment at the nomination if you disagree; if consensus is that the hook is acceptable, it can always get back in another set. Ucucha 11:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI (not in regard to Q6), some errors that bot posts on its page don't need to be corrected, such as image size - bot is fine with that and it can be used to stretch some problematic thumbs if Main Page balance permits. Materialscientist (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I'll consider that in the future. I thought the bot may refuse to update when image size is not 100x100. Ucucha 23:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anoblepas[edit]

First part of a translation - i will do the rest later, since i'm somewhat in lack of time, if you need this level of detail - it was done fast - so there is editorial comments and question-marks at some words, where i wasn't certain what the correct translation would be:

Calomys anoblepas n. sp (Pl. III, fig 4)
Is only known by the frontal part of a Scull from Lapa da Serra das Abelhas.
Only in the molars shape is there a specific characteristic between the species Colomys and Hesperomys (see p. 11 and 13). But despite how much the Calomys-species from Lagoa Santa looks like the Hesperomys-species, they had their own characteristics; they seem to be more educated as runners. Those species, of which the outer [shape] is known, have generally longer feet and longer tail than the Hesperomys-species, and the snout is longer. Compared to the Hesperomys-species, the Calomys-species stand in a comparative relationship(?) as Mus sylvaticus to Mus musculus.

Calomys anoblepas is more original [ed: here in species relationship] than the other Calomys-specis and all of the Hesperomyes from Lagoa Santa in the shape of the outer wall of Caualis infraorbitalis, that is more like the ones found in Cricetus; in the strangely strong protruding(?) cheek-bows(?) and in the foreheads narrowness it is less original. Between the other species the little C. longicaudatus is more likely closer to C. anoblepas, but on a bit higher level [ed: evolutionary]: The outer wall of Canalis infraorbitalis is more developed; in the shape of the curve of the chin and forehead it though is lower [ed: again evolutionary; it is especially developed [ed: could be trained - but not likely in context] as a jumper(?); between all Hesperomyes from Lagoa Santa, of which the outer shape is known, it has the relatively longest and strongest feet and longest tail. C. plebejus is distinctive [ed: marked, characterized?] from C. longicaulatus by the foreheads eye-socket rim being smooth, and not sharp, and by the comb [ed: rim?] of the middle jaws front edge being stronger, which indicates stronger nasal musculature. C. saltator is of all the species the one that has the shortest Foramen incisivum, which is unlikely to be original [ed: again in evol. context]; other unique characteristics is tehat there isn't any Fontanell[ed: unknown word] in the nasal sidewalls towards Fissura orbitalis and that the drum bone [ed: hope you know what this is :) ] is comparatively small; i both these cases [ed: relationships] it is more like the Rhipidomys; like C. longicoudatus is is trained(?) as a jumper [ed: spring(er)?]; it has long narrow feet with extraordinarily strong tread-pillows [ed: hmmm - in english; anyways the part of the feet that touches the ground]. C. rex is the strongest of the species; The forehead between the eye sockets is compressed like the C. anoblepas. C. coronatus and C. laticeps divert from the other species by having Prc. supraorbitalis, which in the C. coronatus is only list-shaped[ed: long narrow - ask!], somewhat like with Mus decumanus, but with C. laticeps it is flatly shaped [again ask!], vertically protruding over the eye-sockets.

Hope it helps - it is down to the point where the list of evol. characteristics is. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I'll expand the article with this material and ask when anything is unclear. I think there is more material on anoblepas on subsequent pages, but I'll use this piece first. ~~A "Fontanell" is a suture, a line between some of the bones of the skull.~~ Edit: Not exactly, it is the opening between two skull bones in infants. But the sentence refers to Calomys saltator (=Hylaeamys laticeps) anyway, not anoblepas.) Ucucha 12:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The relationship between the species is more likely this way:

I. Outer wall of Canalis infraorbitalis barely stands in front of the upper wall. (C. anoblepas)

II. Outer wall of Canalis infraorbitalis protrudes before the upper wall.
A) Without Prc. supraorbitalis
Forehead between eye sockets not compressed.
a. Foramen incisicum long.
alpha. Small; only a weak rim in front of the middle jaw bone. (C. longiacaudatus)

beta. Larger; Strong rim in front of the middle jaw bone. (C. plebejus)

b Foramen incisicum short. (C. saltator)

Forehead between eye sockets is compressed. (C. rex)

B) With Prc. supraorbitalis
Prc. supraorbitalis list-shaped [ed: as before elongated thin i think] (C. coronatus)

Prc. supraorbitalis flat (C. laticeps)

Calomys anoblepas is the most unique of the species. Its closest relative is likely C. longicaudatus, from whom it deviates in its considerable size, in the shape of the cheek-bow and forehead.
From Calomys laticeps it deviates in the following:
It is considerably smaller.
Scull. The side of the middle jaw bone has a rather deep impression after the innermost part of the lip-muscle. The outer wall of Canalis infraorbitalis hardly protrudes in front of the upper. The cheek-bow [ed: curve?] is weak in front and very strongly curved to the sides. The forehead is narrow, compressed, cavitated (?) sidewards. No Prc. supraorbitalis; The foreheads eye socket rim is rather sharp, reminding of Hesperomys simplex. The palate ends in line with the hindmost rim of m 3. No pit in the hindmost part of the palate, and the back of Foramen palatinum small.
Measurements of the depicted scull:

Upper cheek-teeth row	4 1/3	Length of Foramen incisicum	5 3/4
Upper frontal teeths total width	1 3/4	Height of outer wall of Canalis infraorbitalis	5
From upper m 1 to front tooth	6 2/4	Forehead width between eye sockets	3 3/4
Palate with between both m 2	2 2/3

This should then complete it. I've had a bit of trouble in translating some of the words, but should've marked where it is problematic, and given a reasonable approximation of words. Sometimes i had trouble in my internal translation - apparently when i use english .. i think it - so translation becomes more of a trouble because the two states of mind do not easily combine :-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does "list-shaped" make sense in English? In danish it is "Liste formet" - "en liste" is a long thin piece of wood. Ie long in one dimension, short in 2 dimensions. I can't recall if its the same in English --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you mean there, but haven't yet made out what structure he is referring to.

Are you sure about the "chin-bow"? It would make more sense to me if that were the "cheek-bow", or zygomatic arch.

Thanks for the translation; I will start expanding the article using it and come back with any questions. Ucucha 20:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found it myself, I think: wikt:kind#Danish says "kind" means "cheek", not "chin". Ucucha 20:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheek is correct. My bad translation. [heh - if you once get it wrong - you'll continue along the same bad line of thought :)] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Another hint was that without a lower jaw, Winge could hardly have described the chin of O. anoblepas. :-) Ucucha 10:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just expanded the article using your translation, which was very helpful, and nominated the article for GA status.

I couldn't resist doing some OR on its identity myself. Winge (1887:44–45) notes the absence of a zygomatic notch as an important character, and indeed it looks distinctive in the image provided. Among Oryzomyini, the only species lacking a zygomatic notch that occurs near Lagoa Santa is Oecomys catherinae (Weksler 2006:31–32). However, that species has a long palate that extends well beyond the third molars and prominent posterolateral palatal pits (Weksler 2006:34–36, table 5). I haven't seen images of the skull of O. catherinae, but those characters seem strong enough to reject the possibility that O. anoblepas is O. catherinae. Another possibility is that the back part of the palate in the type of anoblepas is broken off, hiding the pits and making the palate seem shorter than it was in life, but it seems unlikely that Winge would have missed that.

If not an oryzomyine, O. anoblepas must be some other pentalophodont sigmodontine, as Winge included only pentalophodont species in Calomys (pentalophodont rodents have a mesoloph, an accessory crest on the upper molars). The only candidates are the thomasomyines and some enigmatic genera from southern Brazil and adjacent regions that have sometimes been associated with the thomasomyines—Rhipidomys, Rhagomys, Wiedomys, Wilfredomys, Delomys, Juliomys, Abrawayaomys, and Phaenomys:

Rhipidomys is similar in some respects, lacking zygomatic notches, having long incisive foramina and a short palate, and lacking posterolateral palatal pits (Patton et al. 2000:162). However, Winge (1887:51) described Rhipidomys mastacalis separately from Lagoa Santa. The three species of Rhipidomys in eastern Brazil (R. cariri, R. macrurus, and R. masticalis) all have longer but narrower molars and longer incisive foramina (Tribe 2005:table 1A); in combination, this makes an identity with any extant species of Rhipidomys unlikely.
Rhagomys has a longer palate and shorter incisive foramina (Luna and Patterson 2003; Pinheira et al. 2004).
Wiedomys lacks a zygomatic notch, has a short palate and long incisive foramina, and lacks posterolateral palatal pits. Its measurements do not match, however, and the incisors are opisthodont, not orthodont as in O. anoblepas (Goncalves et al. 2005).
Wilfredomys has a narrower interorbital region (Pacheco 2003; no image seen)
Delomys was described by Winge, as Calomys plebejus, and has a longer snout (length of diastema >7.5 mm) and more developed zygomatic notch (Voss 1993).
Juliomys may be similar (Costa et al. 2007; Pardinas et al. 2008; Sancha et al. 2009), but is too small:

Taxon	IOW	LM1–3	WM1	DL	LIF
Oryzomys anoblepas	3.75	4.33	1.75	6.5	5.75
Juliomys ossitenuis	3.63–3.93	3.65–3.92	1.02–1.11	5.47–7.04	4.19–5.36
Juliomys pictipes	3.76–4.50	3.74–3.92	1.06–1.10	5.07–6.60	3.65–4.43
Juliomys rimofrons	No skull measurements, but about as large as the others

Abrawayaomys is out of the question (Miralles et al., 2009); it has a delicate skull with small molars, a prominent zygomatic notch, and measurements that don't fit O. anoblepas at all.
Phaenomys has a narrower interorbital region (Pacheco 2003; no image seen) and is much larger, with an upper toothrow length of 5.9 mm and a diastema of 9.3 mm (Thomas 1894).

In summary, I am unable to identify Oryzomys anoblepas with any currently known living Brazilian rodent. However, I cannot be confident that it is indeed a separate species without comparing specimens or even skull images of some taxa. Ucucha 02:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Eremoryzomys[edit]

On April 17, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eremoryzomys, 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review for Oryzomys anoblepas[edit]

Hello Ucucha, I'll be reviewing Oryzomys anoblepas for GA status. I'll leave some comments on the review page shortly. Regards, Airplaneman ✈ 23:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I'll be watching and will try to address any issues promptly. Ucucha 23:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Quick) pass (wish there as an option for that...) Solid article; I left a few comments on the review page. I'll list it; I'm guessing it goes under the "organisms" section in Wikipedia:Good_articles#Natural_sciences. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Congrats! Airplaneman ✈ 00:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's where I'd place it.

Thank you for the review and glad you liked it. Ucucha 00:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats from me as well - glad i could help :) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without your help, the article couldn't have been nearly as good. Ucucha 18:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've picked up Holochilus primigenus as well. Airplaneman ✈ 18:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I'll try to address any issues promptly. Ucucha 18:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure science uses the metric system as a primary means of measurement; I'm assuming this is why the {{convert}} template isn't used in the article (in the description section)? Airplaneman ✈ 18:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do give metric conversions for external measurements, but the measurements of these teeth are so small that it isn't really meaningful to add the imperial conversion. In the sources, of course, they are always given in metric units only. Ucucha 18:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Will add some comments here shortly. Airplaneman ✈ 18:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Passed - congrats! I have on comment on the review page. Airplaneman ✈ 19:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. The backlog elimination drive is really doing good, I guess. Ucucha 19:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes :). Two more per person and zero noms would be left! I wish I could say more for the articles you have nominated, but I can't... they are GA quality. I'm taking up UA 8699. Airplaneman ✈ 19:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've got just one little tiny thing. Please see Talk:UA 8699/GA1. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 19:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I replied there. Ucucha 20:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Passed. I'm placing it under the "Biology" subsection in the Natural sciences topic in WP:GA. Congrats! Airplaneman ✈ 20:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good! I might have listed it under "Organisms", but that's of little consequence. Ucucha 21:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review for Oryzomys antillarum[edit]

Hi there Ucucha! I will be reviewing Oryzomys antillarum for GA status. I do not intend to do this right now, but I will do so in a few hours. I'm looking forward to working with you. I've taken a quick look at the article, and the subject really caught my attention. Best wishes! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 03:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I'll be keeping an eye out for your comments. Ucucha 11:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on the GA listing. This is an excellent article, and you should consider a peer review and later a FA nomination.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll send it to FAC someday, as I don't think it needs more to meet the FA criteria—but I think Oryzomys couesi will go first. Ucucha 18:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JL-Bot italics[edit]

I notice you italicised some things on the Madagascar Recognised content page. Perhaps you'd like to talk to the bot owner about finding a way to respect DISPLAYTITLE (tricky or costly perhaps, if buried in {{taxobox}}). Because I suspect the bot will revert your changes with the next update. Rd232 ^talk 09:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize it was a bot which did that. I'll just let it be; it isn't that important. Ucucha 12:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Isospora hammondi[edit]

On April 19, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Isospora hammondi, 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Temple[edit]

Hi Ucucha: can you have a look at User talk:SpacemanSpiff and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kuttiyattu paradevada temple? Deletion and userfication is requested, so if you have a moment...thanks! Drmies (talk) 03:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I avoid AFD at all costs. No rice rats there, or anything else that's interesting. I had hoped that when I wrote an article about a single tooth, I would finally change that, but to no avail. Ucucha 11:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Holy moly. An article about a broken tooth. I can't believe it. I would nominate it for deletion, but all you admins, who are all conspiring to keep science nonsense in and relevant popular culture out, would probably ban me immediately. Drmies (talk) 13:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Ucucha 13:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm flying to the motherland next week. Need any cheese? Do I need to mail you some system, to an assumed name? Drmies (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be going back in a month or so; I can just stand that much time without good cheese. Ucucha 13:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope for you that the ash will be gone by then.

There is something not quite right about the marsh rice rat having been on the Main Page a few days ago while today the Journal of Mammalogy published a study which argued (persuasively, I think) that there is not one marsh rice rat—west of Alabama it's a different species, Oryzomys texensis. And for good measure, Oryzomys couesi is also split into a species or four. I don't think I'll ever finish writing articles about rice rats in this way, if they continue to recognize new species faster than I can write about them. Ucucha 21:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try lemurs! – VisionHolder « talk » 16:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er, lemurs? How about whitefishes or damselfishes? Or what about katydids? —innotata 01:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or moss-mice. Eight new species last year, out of fourteen in total. I think lemurs have been slowing down a little lately, actually. Ucucha 04:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think Ucucha is part of the administrative rat squad, Drmies? The only cabal Ucucha seems to participate in is the evil bunch of aristocrats living in castles. I wonder if the ash will be clear, yesterday the BBC said it would be clear in hours, but today it is made much of that the last eruption lasted for years (1821 to 1823).

More relevantly, are you splitting marsh rice rat? I'd like to see that process (I may do it myself some time). Maybe I ought to beat your broken tooth article with articles on single eggshell fragments, droppings, and feather impressions and those sort of things some dinosaurs are described from. —innotata 02:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The marsh rice rat article shouldn't be much longer, but I won't split it now (unless the split is between Oryzomys palustris and Oryzomys texensis, but I'll wait with that too). I think a feather impression would be the summum; it's not even a part of the animal, or something that came out of it, but just an image of it. Now bring such an article to FA status. Ucucha 02:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was referring to texensis. As for the feather impression, I remember there is one with a scientific name, which has been much debated in the paleontological literature because of its age. In the past it has been acceptable to name dinosaurs off of all sorts of little fragments; tracks are still OK. —innotata 15:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll do that when a major taxonomic review and/or the Red List accepts it. There are some loose ends, like exactly where the boundary is. Illinois rice rats, for example, were referred to palustris palustris by Goldman, but I read that they are a bit on the small side and may be texensis. When I do the split, I'll have to find out where all the sources got their rice rats from, and hope it's not too close to the border between the two. For Oryzomys couesi, I've been careful to attribute studies to their geographic origin wherever possible. But there I got the problem that Weksler (2006) apparently used specimens of both O. mexicanus (skins and skulls) and O. couesi (fluid-preserved).

There are also remaining taxonomic problems in both, which will make it difficult to write decent articles on the split species. For the marsh rice rat, we don't know what should be done with fossilis; it may be inferred that it is a third species that predated the split between the two, but it is from the range of texensis. In couesi, there are unstudied forms, like crinitus which could well be another good species, and the relationships of the other, genetically unknown species could give more surprises. I also wonder what will become of the Colombian population, which is actually east of the Colombian population of O. gorgasi. Ucucha 17:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]