User talk:Ucucha/Archive21

Archives

Leave a new message

Missing Malagasy Bat[edit]

Hi, I noticed the template on your page and List of bats of Madagascar is missing Myzopoda aurita - it looks like an article that you could expand as well! Cheers Smartse (talk) 12:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually listed on both. I am in no shortage of articles to expand, though. :-) Ucucha 12:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yea, so it is. Something must have gone wrong with Ctrl F! Oh well. I know the feeling about articles to expand too. Smartse (talk) 12:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miniopterus brachytragos.[edit]

Hi, I've nominated your article, Miniopterus brachytragos for DYK. Just so you know. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I made a comment there. Ucucha 18:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ucucha; just a reminder: Miniopterus griveaudi. Cheers! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 04:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on it, and hope to finish it today. I think it's the most well-known of the five, so there is more to tell. Ucucha 05:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okey-doke! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 05:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You Have Mail[edit]

I know, cause I wrote it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not interested, and don't see anything very suspicious. Ucucha 07:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request[edit]

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 17, 2010, Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 18, 2010, and Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 19, 2010: Degrassi: The Next Generation needs to be italicized. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done (though the July 17 one isn't actually protected). Now run at RFA soon so you can do it yourself. :-) Ucucha 16:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent request[edit]

Hi, I wonder whether you are able to do a quick job in the next hour or so for The Signpost? There has been a comedy of errors resulting in the fact that the Choice of the week for FAs has still not been done, and the whole publication is waiting on it. Could you let me know if you're able to do this? Tony (talk) 11:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will. Ucucha 11:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks so much! FL and FP choices are there already. It can be as technical as you wish (criteria, etc), or subjective, or both. Just a short paragraph. I'll come in and smooth it over after you've inserted it. LINK. Tony (talk) 11:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing something up now. I suppose I'm not allowed to choose Triaenops menamena? :-) Ucucha 12:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added my choice. I'm not too happy with the way I worded my argument, but I think it will do. Ucucha 12:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, sadly not your own! Thanks heaps. I'm just going in now to rearrange the images, etc. Tony (talk) 12:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noronha skink, references[edit]

Since you're the main editor of Noronha skink, I'd like to ask for your permission to change the citation style, using {{Citation}} ("Literature") and {{Harvnb}} ("References"). For a "preview" of what I mean, see Dominican Anole. —bender235 (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks; I see no need for it, and suggest you find something more useful to do than changing reference styles. Ucucha 14:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's your call. But the reference style basically wouldn't change. The only difference would be those links underneath citations like "Dunn, 1935, p. 536" (see Dominican Anole#Notes). IMHO, this feature is very useful to Wikipedia readers, but again, it's leave the decision to your discretion. Oh, btw, "changing reference styles" is what Wikipedia:WikiProject Citation cleanup does, all the time ;-). —bender235 (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then that WikiProject is misnamed and misguided. (If instead of "changing" it was "improving", like completing bare-URL citations, then that would be a different thing.) I think the benefit of the Harvnb links doesn't compensate for the increased complexity of the citations, or the excessive amount of blue links. By the way, the references at Dominican Anole go against the FA criteria in a few ways: they are inconsistent in referring to three-author papers as "A et al." or "A, B, and C", and they overuse the ampersand. Ucucha 15:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a link has to be blue, otherwise it would not be recognised as a link. And of course, making it a direct link to the citation is very useful. If you think otherwise, you might as well start a WP:TFD for {{harv}}.

Dominican Anole is not inconsistent at all. Those et al. abbreviation is only used for papers with 4 or more authors (Malhotra et al. 2007 being the only case in that article), so your claim is baseless. And calling the ampersands for the last author an "overuse" is just ridiculous (and WP:& doesn't even mention ampersands in literature sections), but you might start a discussion about that at Template talk:Citation to see the reactions.

Anyway, I consider adding a direct link to citations (via {{harvnb}} helpful and improving. Also, I would've fixed all those broken links in the "Literature cited" section, and replaced them (if possible) with DOI. That is what Wikipedia:WikiProject Citation cleanup members do, and what all of them consider an "improvement" of references. --bender235 (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that both reference styles are usable and appropriate, for different articles, etc., and shouldn't be changed unnecessarily—this is also what WP:CITEHOW says. Actually, changing the look of {{harvnb}} template as suggested, which is worth discussing, probably only needs to be done at that template, and discussed at its talk. I don't see any dead links at the skink article. I was not aware that "fixing" articles like Noronha skink is the sort of thing that project does, and if this is really its intention, it seems misguided. —innotata 20:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Broken link

By the way, WP:CITEHOW does not say don't change citation styles. It also does not say the first editor owns the article and is empowered to determine the citation style for eternity. It says in case of dispute and no consensus, the original citation style should be the compromise. Now in this case, Ucucha (as a main contributor to the article) disagrees with the proposed citation style, and therefore WP:CITEHOW applies unless there's a majority to outvote him (maybe, maybe not). But please make sure you sure to understand that there is no rule in Wikipedia that declares any article a "finished product" that can't be improved. --bender235 (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that; I've removed the link since there unfortunately doesn't appear to be another online version (even though I have a PDF... I forgot how I got it). (The reason I didn't see it was because I used the checklinks.py tool at toolserver, and Google in this case apparently doesn't give a status code that indicates there is no cache.)

Regardless of the precise wording of CITEHOW, I think the general point of pieces like CITEHOW (and WP:RETAIN and WP:MOS#Stability of articles) is that there is little point in going around changing styles because you prefer one style over another. You say below that you dislike it to see that the TFA uses an "unconventional" citation style. Well, there are many prominent articles using "unconventional" citation styles (Walter Bache and Siege of Godesberg at least among current FACs, for example; and as Innotata says the use of {{citation}} is itself unconventional). I think it would be much more productive if you would like it very little if an article linked prominently on the Main Page is a six-line stub. Ucucha 06:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I don't think implementing {{Citation}} and {{Harv}} is "changing one style to another"; I think it is improving the article by adding another feature (that is the Notes→Literature link, and the metadata beneath the literature citations). Anyway, I prefer doing this w/out an edit war, therefore I'll leave your article untouched. —bender235 (talk) 10:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see Noronha skink on the main page. I'd say it's the best article you've written yet. —innotata 20:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict; I agree with all that Innotata says above.) The reason that I won't TFD the template is, I think, where we fundamentally disagree. I have no problem with other editors of Wikipedia using a different citation style and don't wish to impose the one I use; with you, it appears, it is different. (It's good, though, that you asked before changing things around; thanks for that!)

Yes, on some occasions it turned out that WP:BOLD is not appreciated. Actually few days ago someone tried to block me via WP:AN/I for replacing <references /> with {{Reflist}}, so now I usually ask the article's main editors for some sort of permission.

Where we fundamentally disagree is this: I do have a problem when each Wikipedia article uses a different citation style. IMHO, that is irritating to readers. Therefore, I'm looking to implement {{Citation}} on as many articles as I can. --bender235 (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other editord don't agree with you, hence guidelines like WP:CITEHOW. Why {{citation}}? The style there (as opposed to the more common {{cite book}}, etc.) is rarely used in print. —innotata 21:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't be, {{Citation}} and {{Cite book}} both use {{Citation/core}} as their "engine", and therefore produce exactly the same result. And by the way, I don't think all Wikipedians disagree with me on that "consistent citation style" idea. --bender235 (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citation uses too many commas, which the others don't. Much commented upon. I think citations should be consistent, but not all the same, and the consensus so far is at WP:CITEHOW etc. —innotata 21:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't notice that. But I don't care about the exact style anyway, I just look for having the same style implement in every article. The good thing about those citation templates is that (if there's consensus for it) the citation style of millions of articles can be changed simultaneously. —bender235 (talk) 10:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for missing that the "et al." was only for four or more authors (itself an odd convention, though I have occasionally seen it used before). As for the ampersands, the way I read that section of MOS, specific allowed uses of ampersands are listed, and use in citations is not among them. But there is little point in exegesis of the text of MOS, and you seem to get agitated on this matter, so I am willing to drop the point; it is not central to my argument at all.

There are (as far as I can see) no broken links in the literature section of Noronha skink, just a few that redirect. Wishing to replace those is to me another example of useless edits in the guise of "cleanup".

I just started the GA review for the Dominican Anole; it's an interesting animal and thanks for drawing my attention to it. I hope I'll be able to continue focusing on that sort of thing—I really like it very little to have to discuss citation styles every time an article I write gets some prominence.

True, but on the other hand I like it very little to see a prominent article having an "unconventional" citation style. --bender235 (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Innotata. I think my two articles that made TFA (the marsh rice rat and this one) are really my best FAs so far, perhaps because there has been some serious research outside taxonomy and morphology on both of them and because there are enough sources on both of them that the article isn't dominated by a single source or a few of them (compare that with poor Eremoryzomys, which really cites everything substantial that has ever been written on it). Perhaps Transandinomys talamancae comes somewhat close, and I think the Madagascar pteropodids will be similar when I get around to writing about them. Ucucha 20:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Perot presidential campaign, 1992[edit]

I added to the article as you suggested at the FA review. Please let me know if I have addressed your concerns.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What will it take to gain your support?--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I won't support; I don't feel I know the subject well enough that I can be confident that the criteria (particularly 1c) are met. Ucucha 17:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. How do you feel about the map I added? --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite interesting. (County-level data might be even better.) It raises new questions, though. Why did he do so poorly in the South? Ucucha 17:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say he did poorly in the south, just not as well as in other regions. Most contemporary third party candidates have focused their efforts on the west because it is easier to gain the support of the sparse population, while allowing the candidate to look better because of their performance in a large area. This is all OR because I have not found any source that that was the case in this campaign. Looking through the article, Perot does not campaign in the south but his advertisements run nation-wide. It may just represent who was more receptive to his message. In the south, the people generally make less than average ("The income of supporters mirrored the general public"), and a large number of African Americans are found there ("94% (of supporters) were white").--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relatively poorly, that is. Thanks for the explanation; interesting stuff. Ucucha 17:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PD expansions[edit]

Just to let you know if you're interested - I have quick-expanded Ord's Kangaroo Rat and Townsend's ground squirrel and will do several more rodents soon. Materialscientist (talk) 08:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. Please do be a little more careful; Townsend's still has a stray section header from the source and the wrong genus abbreviation (S. instead of U.). Ucucha 08:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Materialscientist (talk) 08:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Home range and density", under "Preferred habitat". The abbreviations are in "Distribution" (also, the subspecies names should be in italics). Ucucha 08:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, fixed some, S. is from Spermophilus (an alternate name) and comes from the source - I am basically doing a copy/paste job, not for DYK. Materialscientist (talk) 09:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but we call the species Urocitellus in the taxobox and the lead; we should to the same in the body. I'll have another look later, as I don't have much time now. Ucucha 09:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it seems the account of townsendii you based your expansion refers to a composite of three species: Urocitellus mollis, Urocitellus canus, and Urocitellus townsendii. It's been split, and the information in the article may refer to any of these three species. Ucucha 09:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Christopher Augustus Voelcker (chemist)[edit]

I see you regularly patrol DYK. I am looking for advice. I am planning a DYK for an article currently in my user-space. I have asked for advice at John Christopher Augustus Voelcker (chemist) (User|.Malleu)'s talk page. Not sure I am getting sensible answers. The article is currently in my user space (and I am trying hard not to leave links to it all over the place). Do you think the article will pass DYK and if so, with which hook? The first or second (or both)? --Senra (talk) 10:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK is an easy process; almost any new article of sufficient length will pass, and yours look well-cited and well-organized. Assuming the sources are good, I think your first hook is the better one, as it's much "hookier" than the second one. Ucucha 10:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kid Cudi (pending reviews)[edit]

Thank you for your input to Mammals following my review of one pending change. Much appreciated. I tried to review pending changes to Kid Cudi. After reviewing the article, I was about to undo the one pending change, but by then two other changes had occured. I was unable to determine how to undo all three. Also, is there a way to tag an article to say I am currently reviewing it? So sorry about such naive questions; was just trying to help --Senra (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the former question: you can edit an earlier revision of a page to restore it. For example, in this diff, if you click the "edit" link next to "Version as of 10:42, ..." and then "save", you will restore the version after you made your post.

I don't think there's a way to say you're reviewing a pending change. Ucucha 06:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mustelidae.[edit]

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/6/10

You think you can handle editing the Mustelidae article? Cause I am sure I can't.--Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't necessarily follow each recent phylogenetic study. This seems a pretty good one, though, with 12,000 bp of data. Classifications will change and change again with more and more comprehensive studies (note that this one doesn't include at least one known mustelid genus). The fact that our current article on mustelids uses at least three different classifications I think is a nice indication that we don't really know how to organize them. Ucucha 14:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Royal National College for the Blind[edit]

Hi. I've been asked to submit the article Royal National College for the Blind for FAC by PaulLargo, who is currently away for personal reasons and therefore unable to do it himself. I notice the last review was concluded with a request to submit the article again, but to notify those who had contributed to the discussion to determine whether they had any major objections to it being put forward again. Since the last FAC I've done some minor work on expanding it and, along with another user, have added more images. I feel it's probably ready for submission again, but wanted to run it past those who reviewed it last time before completing the nomination. If there are no objections by Monday 26 July I'll assume everything is ok and submit the FAC and wait for comments. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly reviewed the substance of the article. However, from a look over the previous FACs, it doesn't seem there were severe problems. Currently, the article at least has inconsistent citations (compare refs 85 and 88, for example). Ucucha 14:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. I see what you mean. Looks like there isn't an author for 85 so he just left the parameter out. I've not submitted anything for FAC before, so what usually happens if something has no name attached to it? Do we give it a "Staff Reporter" title or something? That's usually what happens with newspaper articles where the reporter isn't named in the byline. TheRetroGuy (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but think that you don't need to give an author in that case; what I was referring to was that one had the publisher in parentheses and the other had it in a separate sentence. Ucucha 15:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oh, Not sure how to fix that but I'll take a look and see what I can do. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 15:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be because you use {{cite web}} for one and {{cite news}} for the other. I think both should use cite news. There are probably more instances of this little problem in the article. Ucucha 15:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll take a look and update any I find. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 15:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I hadn't spotted the difference between the two, but think I've got them all now. I also found a couple of BBC links that were wrongly credited to BBC News rather than BBC Online. Let me know if there are any more problems. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Multiplicity[edit]

Hoi Ucucha--two things. First of all, I'm sorry to say that I couldn't identify the rodent that my cat left--in the backyard I had the head, the tail, and some organ (a bladder?) connected to the tail, and then the rest of it, regurgitated, in the front yard. Rodents are nice, but partly processed they're not so yummy anymore. I also didn't say a prayer for it--but I did retch for ten minutes. Second, how does one do a multiple DYK? Or, did I get it right? Thanks! Drmies (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. It might even have been a rice rat; I could probably identify it on its teeth. Predators are nice; several small mammal species have been first identified from owl pellets (like Crocidura hilliana).

I added some nice templates, so that your talk page can also look like this in a couple of days. Ucucha 16:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But keep in mind: hoge bomen vangen veel wind. Next time I'll send you the remains; your fellow convicts will appreciate the odor. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good. And in response to this: not too long ago, though more recently I've been reading Hendrik Marsman (in addition to Zofia Kielan-Jaworowska, who has a very different style). Ucucha 16:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I didn't even realize I was messing in the archive. Zofia sounds interesting. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/500 home run club/archive1[edit]

Mind stopping by again? The nom seems slow to gain any steam, and you've at least left a comment so I have to glom on to you! :) Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I might—but isn't it enough that I checked the links on a sports article? Ucucha 07:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

) No doubt, thanks! Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Miniopterus brachytragos[edit]

On July 24, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Miniopterus brachytragos, 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) 00:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Miniopterus manavi[edit]

On July 24, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Miniopterus manavi, 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) 00:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Miniopterus aelleni[edit]

On July 24, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Miniopterus aelleni, 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) 00:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Miniopterus griveaudi[edit]

On July 24, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Miniopterus griveaudi, 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) 00:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Miniopterus mahafaliensis[edit]

On July 24, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Miniopterus mahafaliensis, 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) 00:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Why "rice" rats?[edit]

Hi, the new featured topic: I can't see any explanation of this intriguing name. Is there a reason behind it? (They like to eat rice?) Tony (talk) 03:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's under Marsh rice rat#Early history and Oryzomys#Circumscription. The U.S. species, the marsh rice rat, does apparently have a habit of eating rice, as does its Mexican and Central American sister species, Oryzomys couesi. But you're probably referrng to Transandinomys; they just got the name by association with the species I mentioned. I am not aware of any record of either of the two Transandinomys eating rice. Ucucha 06:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I might or might not work that in (probably too laboured to do so). Tony (talk) 08:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Argentodites[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Argentodites at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Nsk92 (talk) 17:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I replied there; there is no problem. Ucucha 17:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, quite an unusual title for the ref. I have marked the entry as verified. Nsk92 (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's not unusual to see things like this in paleontology, particularly the branch of paleontology that studies all those little teeth and fragments from a very long time ago; a recent paper on the relationships of the gondwanatheres, for example, also mentions TNM 02067 from the "?Cretaceous", LACM 149371 from the "?Eocene", and Argentodites being based on a "?left" tooth. Ucucha 17:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I did not know this. In my own field, mathematics, the question mark is rarely used in article titles, even at the end of the sentence, and certainly never at the beginning of a word. I wonder how one is supposed to pronounce the titles of such paleontology articles... Nsk92 (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, I wouldn't know. Probably it won't be pronounced, or something like "First query-cimolodontan". Mathematicians don't use questions in article titles? Such titles occur rarely but regularly in biology; I wrote one paper with such a title myself. Ucucha 18:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should perhaps say that mathematicians rarely use article titles that are phrased in the form of a question. I guess the state of knowledge in math is more binary: you have either proved something (in which case you say that as a declarative) or you have not yet proved it, in which case you simply don't write a paper. It is relatively uncommon to write a speculative math paper discussing an open problem, although I guess there is an increased understanding now that such papers are useful. However even there the title would not be usually in the form of a question, but rather something like "On such and such problem". There are some interesting exceptions to all of the above. A few years back a well known mathematician, Martin Dunwoody, thought that he solved a famous open problem, called the Poincare conjecture. He wrote and publicly posted a paper called "A proof of the Poincare Conjecture". Shortly thereafter a gap in the proof was pointed to him by others (a really big gap since he was not able to fill it), and he changed the title of the paper to "A proof of the Poincare Conjecture?" But that is a pretty unusual story for a math paper. Anyway, this is going a bit too far off the rails.... Nsk92 (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Millennium Park/archive2[edit]

Since you commented at the original FAC, I thought you might care to comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Millennium Park/archive2.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of TNM 02067[edit]

Hello! Your submission of TNM 02067 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Nsk92 (talk) 05:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Four Award/Records[edit]

Could you recheck all your dates for your most recent edit at Wikipedia:Four Award/Records Several award and creation dates are wrong.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done; thanks for the note. Ucucha 16:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of the 1990–1991 South Pacific cyclone season/archive1[edit]

Hello,

I thank you greatly for leaving comments on the FLC page. I believe that I addressed your comments. Could you take a look when you have the chance?

Thanks,

--Yueof theNorth 15:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies; I've responded there. Ucucha 15:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Favor[edit]

Hi Ucucha, was wondering if you could do me a favor. I'm considering bringing Amanita regalis to FAC, and am going through the literature again. One source in Dutch I can access here (starts at page 39), but the Babelfish translator just isn't doing it for me. Would you be able to take a look and see if there's anything in there that's missed in the article? I get the gist from the abstract that the author doesn't believe the taxon should be considered a distinct species, but I'd like to hear his rationale and include it. Sasata (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a look. Ucucha 18:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're writing about (something close to) the most famous mushroom of the Netherlands there (muscaria, that is). It figures in a popular children's song on the effects of gnomes sitting on A. muscaria mushrooms.

As for the article, it is mainly a review of an article by Geml et al. (2006):

Geml, J., G.A. Laursen, K. O’Neill, H.C. Nusbaum & D.L. Taylor 2006. Beringian origins and cryptic speciation events in the Fly agaric (Amanita muscaria). Molecular Ecology 15: 225–239.

... that you should probably cite in your article; I see it's already mentioned in the article on A. muscaria. Apparently, "brown A. muscaria" (=A. regalis) appear in all three of the cryptic species discovered within A. muscaria, and there is no reason to suppose they're anything else than a color variant. It has not been determined whether it's an environmentally determined variation or a genetic variant that predates the separation of the various cryptic species. Ucucha 18:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That Paddestoelen song has a melody similar to "Itsy bitsy spider". Thanks for your help! Sasata (talk)

It's a common melody, I think. From what I read, I doubt regalis in fact merits an article, though. Geml et al. (2006) dismiss it as a species, convincingly to me. Ucucha 18:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Discography articles[edit]

Would you be able to tell me whether a discography article would have a problem passing the FLC if the sizes of the certification-awards and sales-figures are minimized as it is in this version of Lady Gaga discography for example? An editor named Legolas2186 believes minimized sizes are frowned upon at FLC. Is it true? Thanks in advance.--Harout72 (talk) 05:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I have ever done on a discography FLC is checking whether the links work correctly, so I'm probably not the best person to ask. However, given that Legolas has brought several discographies to FLC, he may well be right. Ucucha 07:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ITN for Salanoia durrelli[edit]

On 3 August 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Salanoia durrelli, which you nominated and wrote, single-handedly from scratch in just 2 edits!. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

--Very nice work if I may say so. Feel free to fix my blurb if I cocked it up. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I would probably have left out the "officially" and not used the word "species" twice, but nothing really important. Ucucha 05:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His Band and the Street Choir FAC[edit]

Hi. I think I've addressed your concerns. Would you be able to reply back at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/His Band and the Street Choir/archive3. Cheers Kitchen Roll (Exchange words) 20:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I'll take another look tomorrow (working on another article now). Ucucha 20:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok and thanks again Kitchen Roll (Exchange words) 20:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you use a tool for inspecting external links?[edit]

Hi there. I see you continue to do great work on FAC. I know you do a great deal of checking of external links. I haven't been on FAC for a while, however I am (proof-)reading a ton of articles. I figured that, as I do so, I may as well check the externals while I'm there. So I was curious as to whether you use anything to help you or whether you do the task by simply checking them all out manually. I noticed your pop-up about how you use your talk page, so I'm happy for you to reply on this page and I will keep an eye out for your reply. Regards, --bodnotbod (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I use the "Check links" tool that is linked in the toolbox at each FAC. It automatically looks at each link and gives a code and information on the page. Red ones mean the link is almost certainly dead, though I have seen sites that apparently return a 404 error and still display the correct page, green ones are usually OK but I often check some that look suspicious. White ones are almost certainly OK. Ucucha 16:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I knew there was a tool somewhere but I foolishly went to look for it at WP:EXTERNAL. Thanks Ucucha. --bodnotbod (talk) 07:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for TNM 02067[edit]

On August 5, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article TNM 02067, 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.

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Argentodites[edit]

On August 5, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Argentodites, 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.

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voorleser[edit]

Hey Uchucha,
When researching the article, I found that the etymology was German, from vor+leser (which I didn't realize I misspelled in the article :/). As far as the adoption, I found that many similar words from different languages had a form of vorleser, and in retrospect (from what seemed obvious to me) was that the German word must have been adopted by other European languages. This constitutes OR (oops), and I will remove it. - Theornamentalist (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I replied there. Ucucha 06:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for LACM 149371[edit]

On August 7, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article LACM 149371, 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.

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Little Thetford FA[edit]

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

re Salanoia at my talk page[edit]

Hello. You have a new message at ErikHaugen's talk page.

Your GA nomination of Miniopterus manavi[edit]

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Miniopterus manavi you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Twilight Helryx 18:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I already posted a comment at the review page. No problem if it takes some time. Ucucha 18:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm all done reviewing (I was able to finish earlier than anticipated), and I think the article is very nicely written. There are just a few small things that need addressing before I pass it, but they shouldn't take to long to fix/explain. =) Cheers, Twilight Helryx 19:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Veratalpa[edit]

On 10 August, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Veratalpa, 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.

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P. raceyi question[edit]

To save clogging the FAC I'll ask here—another one that's just occurred to me is, do we know if it echolocates or not? "Some species use echolocation" is probably the one Batfact that most readers will know, so it's something a lot of readers will probably wonder. – iridescent 16:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does, as certainly as it does eat insects. All non-pteropodid bats echolocate, and all except pteropodids, phyllostomids, and a couple of others eat insects, but that information is usually taken for granted in papers about particular species. Racey et al. (2007) actually casually say that the timing of the breeding season may be related to insect abundance, and that data about echolocation may lead to a refinement of the distinctions among the species of Malagasy "pipistrelles", but don't say specifically that P. raceyi echolocates or eats insects. Ucucha 17:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable enough; I can see that it's already covered at bat itself. – iridescent 17:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]