Talk:Myanmar snub-nosed monkey

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Redirect request[edit]

A Wikipedia search for "mey nwoah" should redirect to this article because mey nwoah is another name for the Myanmar Snub-nosed Monkey as stated on sciencedaily.com http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101026203638.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.104.227 (talk) 13:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No more than should Burmesischer Stumpfnasenaffe, which is also the name of this species in another language. Kevin McE (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I created the redirect (see Mey nwoah) as the language this name is in is relevant to the topic. Also, as you can see by Googling "mey nwoah", it has received much press coverage. ►Scarce◄ 22:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldnt the correct article title be Burmese snub-nosed monkey or Burma snub-nosed monkey? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.5.36.149 (talk) 03:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article in the AJP gives "Burma", the press seem to have followed the head of FFI in using "Myanmar", so one of your proposals created as redirect: who has authority to give the generally accepted name, or are we creating it here? Kevin McE (talk) 13:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My error: the AJP gives Burmese, not Burma. changing that now Kevin McE (talk) 13:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

image[edit]

The figure 2.A from the discovery paper should be uploaded. Nergaal (talk) 06:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be copyrighted, so you'd have to justify using it under fair use. 118.92.30.52 (talk) 08:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Facts can be copyrighted? 184.96.225.250 (talk) 15:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We're discussing an image. Kevin McE (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are also color images: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/281728/20120114/first-images-rare-snub-nosed-monkeys-captured.htm http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/snubnosed-pic/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.230.137.182 (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific naming - sp. nov.[edit]

I added "sp. nov." after the proposed Latinate name because it is in the AJP article and Rhinopithecus strykeri is not (yet) official. Another editor promptly reverted me because the popular press is not using the sp. nov. addition. I think we should endeavor to be as correct as possible, even though we write for the layman. I am therefore raising the issue here. LadyofShalott 18:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm being misquoted: I said "publications intended for non-specialists, such as this encyclopaedia": that is not restricted to the "popular press". References cited in the article not using the "sp.nov. addition" include physorg.com, alphagalileo.org, fauna-flora.org, primatology.net and nationalgeographic.com. As I understand it, sp.nov. is not part of the scientific name of a species, but a note used in specialist publications to alert readers that the species is recently described; in Wikipedia, we are advised that we should not use words like recently, to which this seems equivalent. The text makes it clear to anyone reading near to Oct 2010 that the species has been first described recently: the unexplained designation sp. nov. does not acheive that. Kevin McE (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not misquoted, as I did not quote you, but paraphrased you with what is obviously a difference of interpretation as to whether or not those articles constitute popular press. LadyofShalott 19:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have solicited other input into this question from WikiProject Primates. LadyofShalott 19:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I take it the issue is that the AJP article has not yet been published in print? I think "sp. nov." is used only in a paper that is actually describing a new species, and I don't see why we should be using it. Ucucha 23:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very much with Ucucha here. I thought a correct abbreviation for a "not yet officially published" name was "nom. prov.", anyway? Circéus (talk) 06:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not in zoology as far as I know. Sometimes, the name is placed in quotes, but I don't think we need to bother with that—it's more usually used for names that have little prospect of getting properly published. Ucucha 11:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. Thanks for the input. LadyofShalott 18:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation of adjectives[edit]

In keeping with the rules of grammar, I replaced the capital letters on the adjectival phrase critically endangered. Another editor promptly reverted me because "this is not just a common use of the words, but an official designation by the IUCN". The construction of the sentence in question is such that the phrase is not the name of a classification, and the idea that the phrase is the IUCN's is indicated by the use of quotation marks. It is not even a noun, yet alone a proper noun, so the capitalisation seems unjustified. The IUCN itself is not a reliable source of precedent for the use of capitals, as its site includes gems such as Links to Other Information Sources (sic). I think we should endeavor to be as grammatical as possible, even though some of our sources are not. I am therefore raising the issue here. Kevin McE (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: 1) This is an official name for a category by the IUCN, so caps needed. This is no different than Coca-Cola Vanilla by Coca-Cola, or for that matter the other official categories by the IUCN (Least Concern, Data Deficient, Vulnerable, etc). 2) It has only been recommended that it should be considered CR. The IUCN alone can judge this and at present they have not. The suggestion that a population of 260-330 is sufficient is incorrect (a population of less than 250 combined with other criteria can, CR C1-2). However, I suspect it will qualify for CR anyway, but due to other criteria (e.g., B1b). Regardless, neither I nor anybody else (than the IUCN) can judge what category the IUCN will end up using – beyond mentioning what some external authorities have suggested. 212.10.95.14 (talk) 13:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rhinopithecus strykeri on camera trap, January 2012.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Rhinopithecus strykeri on camera trap, January 2012.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK candidate[edit]

This would have been a great DYK candidate if it had not featured on the news page. :( AshLin (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Myanmar snub-nosed monkey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Myanmar_snub-nosed_monkey&oldid=1209286679"