User talk:Animalparty

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
for your work on Hindawi Publishing Corporation. Fgnievinski (talk) 01:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your help in the barred lizard wikipage MThuneibat (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Beetles[edit]

Hi! It's Gug01. I know that you are interested in animals and because you are part of WP:WikiProject Arthropods, I was thinking that we could revive the WikiProject Beetles, which is a descendant project from WikiProject Arthropods that is currently semi-active. Please reply as soon as you can. Gug01 (talk) 23:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC) Gug 01

RE: A page you started (Macrosoma klagesi) has been reviewed![edit]

Hello Animalparty,

Thanks for reviewing the page Macrosoma klagesi, I saw your note in my talk page, but didn't understand you clearly. You have mentioned not to use undefined jargon; it would be helpful if you let me know if anything wrong I mentioned.

Tapas Bose 17:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@Tapas.23571113: I was referring to general guidelines that Wikipedia articles should be written to be understandable by general readers, not just scientists. Jargon refers to technical terms that can often be explained in more familiar language. See WP:NOTJARGON #7: "A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field." and #8: "Texts should be written for everyday readers, not just for academics..." Macrosoma klagesi and many other Macrosoma articles appear written for specialists, understandably given the scientific literature cited, but those sources are written for lepidopterists and other entomologists; Wikipedia articles should be written for a more general audience, and we as editors should promote comprehension over mere facts. Most readers will not understand things like "Saccus is short. The medial component of gnathos is not downcurved..." What exactly is a saccus and a gnathos? More tips and information again is at Make technical articles understandable, and Writing better articles. For more specific examples, see how description is handled in some of the recognized best Lepidoptera articles on Wikipedia: e.g. Chrysiridia rhipheus, Abantiades latipennis and Lulworth skipper. These articles impart knowledge without excessive use of specialized terminology. At Hedylidae, although technical terms are used, they are at least wikilinked to aid in comprehension. If you haven't already, you might find more helpful tips and resources at Wikipedia:WikiProject Lepidoptera or Wikipedia:WikiProject Insects. Please don't mistake this advice for discouragement: your contributions are welcome! If you have additional questions please ask. Cheers! --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
@Animalparty: Thank you for the explanation. I have interest in Entomology but I am not a professional in this field. So I have to rely on the academic articles. For the Macrosoma I didn't find much of the online resources and I am hoping if any specialist of this field would edit or add more information on these topics. I will try to describe the terms now on and will edit my previous pages. Regards,Tapas Bose 08:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


Hello there, how are you? Sorry I did not leave a comment sooner as I had internet issues… regarding what you said, no Javis and his team did not compared the names, but thinking about it "Telamtorae" or "Charadriimorphae" might have been created when Gruiformes used to contain oddballs like bustards, seriemas, Kagu, etc. I will change that. 4444hhhh (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Taurhina splendens[edit]

Hi there, thanks for your help. I fixed the page and added a reference.

Ryanvanhuyssteen (talk) 07:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Do we have to reference everything?[edit]

Hi, I created Bajanaspis based on the fact that it is mentioned on various websites. Thanks for your edits. I suspect only the original description pays attention to this trilobite, and it looks like it that this article is in Russian, and has not been scanned and uploaded anywhere. So for comprehensiveness I created the ulitimate stub saying virtually nothing. I now sourced it to get rid of this horrible unsourced template, but I do not think it desirable to source the leads of articles, particularly if these are so poor in content as this one. Regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 12:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@Dwergenpaartje:Thanks for adding the source. And yes, every article, even a stub, needs at least one reference, per verifiability policy, and if you want others to build upon your stubs, adding a reference is the best way to give them a starting point. In my opinion, creating stubs that say virtually nothing is of limited value, albeit the information in Bajanaspis is slightly better than the too-common biology stubs that simply state: "X is a species of Y named by Author in Year". Cheers, and happy editing. --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute curation[edit]

Thanks Animalparty for your helpful comments on the article Alberta Biodiversity Monitoring Institute. Yes, it definitely needs to be expanded in terms of history and projects. I will be working on this over time and I am hoping other interested editors will add to it. I will probably work on integrating the 2003 study into thematic research areas. I am looking for more references that are not created by the Institute and related agencies.Oceanflynn (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Problem solved[edit]

I fixed the problem you mentioned on my talk page. Heteroponera leae ants are more southerly distributed. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I loved your work![edit]

BuddhistChaplain.jpg Blue diamond.
Please, don´t go away.

I need you, sangha diamond. My body, my words and my mind are yours. Marcioseno (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

list of marine mammals[edit]

Hi @Animalparty,

Yes, I have linked it to the Cetartiodactyla page as its debated still but current research suggests the its the true Order. The discussion is both on the Marine mammal page and the Cetartiodactyla pages. I felt that it should not be too extensive on the page which is just a list. But I will add a short footnote. I am the Education Committee Chair for the Society for Marine Mammalogy and we will be adding the remainder of IUCN red list statuses during a editathon which we will host called the Marine Mammal WikiSprint in late January. The draft course page can be found here:

Perhaps you'd like to enroll. It would be great to have some strong Wikipedians involved!

Thanks ShaneGero (talk) 07:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Parthenogenesis infobox[edit]

I'm currently going through WP:WikiProject Gender Studies articles and labelling any that don't have an infobox. Looking at the article the taxobox template might be appropriate. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

@The Vintage Feminist: The taxobox is a special infobox for biological taxa, i.e. taxonomic ranks like, species, orders, phyla, etc. (see Tiger or Insect for usage) Parthenogenesis is a reproductive mode used by many unrelated organisms, so Taxobox would not apply. This might be a case when a well-written lead is more practical than an infobox. --Animalparty-- (talk) 01:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I may actually take it out of WP:WikiProject Gender Studies as gender studies has more to do with identity formation in human beings, nature versus nurture, rather than this form of asexual reproduction. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Afterthought, I've added it to WP:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, it's more their sort of thing. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Anematichthys repasson[edit]

I believe those two articles actually describe the same species? >> Cyclocheilichthys repasson and >> Anematichthys repasson. What do you think? Dan Koehl (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, those are synonyms, see FishBase synonyms. I saw that after editing Anematichthys repasson. Catalog of Fishes suggests Cyclocheilichthys is the valid genus, yet Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fishes#Taxonomy suggests we use FishBase on Wikipedia. --Animalparty-- (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Im still not 100% how to deal with this species, and which name is presently valid, so I renewed my question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fishes, nothing personal, I just want to get more peoples feedback on the issue. I agree with you that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fishes#Taxonomy suggests we use FishBase, but since this is maybe not the absolute best source for taxonomy, I want to see what others say. Best regards, Dan Koehl (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Species collaboration?[edit]

Hi, Animalparty, how are you? I noticed that you have a lot of experience working with species articles, so I was wondering if we could do some collaboration on species articles. I could learn a lot from you! Regardless, thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia! Bananasoldier (talk) 04:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello! What did you have in mind by collaboration? I'll try my best to offer advice when I can. --Animalparty-- (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
As if right now, I have nothing in mind, but please let me know if you find a species stub that has a lot of potential refs out there. Bananasoldier (talk) 04:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)


This is called, somebody just learned how to use InkScape! Joking aside, do you have thoughts on how to approach the Ornate shrew article, since there are already two articles going on separate subspecies? I'd like to take it to GA status, but not sure how to avoid Wikipedia:Content forking. One thought would be to bring the subspecies articles into the parent species article, then have just one large article. Any advice would be appreciated. --Gaff (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Gaff:Welcome to Inkscape! I meant no disrespect with the "lesser quality" comment, but as it does not clearly show important or diagnostic traits, it seems superfluous. I'm not sure if merging the subspecies is warranted yet: perhaps first the species article should be more fully developed, with each subspecies succinctly described in a table similar to Brown bear (red-links may not then not even be needed), only linking the subspecies with existing articles. --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
No offense taken. It's not easy to find images of smaller mammals, since they are more elusive and not as photogenic as the larger beasts. The skull drawing was made when I was still searching for the better images. Another shrew skull drawing (different animal) is in the works here, by a much more skilled illustrator. Thanks for the guidance. I'll use Brown bear as a model. Gaff (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Darwinia oxylepis[edit]

Hello Animalparty (or perhaps Eagleeye),

Thanks for your note about D. oxylepis - you are perfectly correct. I should have read more carefully and written something like - "currently meets the IUCN Red List Category EN...." (although the reference I used is now 11 years old!). It will be fixed in the next few minutes.


Gderrin (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Done now. Thanks again.

Gderrin (talk) 04:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


So my page can be deleted but not Really? Beyonder (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Beyonder

@BeyonderGod: when your website is significantly covered by Wired, The Guardian, The New Yorker, or any other reliable source, only then is your article worth having on Wikipedia, per General notability guidelines. See also Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, and feel free to nominate any article you feel warrants deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I would like to see the page on those covers please to validate the claims you made. Beyonder (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Beyonder

@BeyonderGod: Wired, Guardian, New Yorker discuss I am lonely will anyone speak to me. My own opinion is that article is dumb and frivolous, but several reliable publications thought it worth discussing, and my opinions do not dictate WP:Notability, nor do those of any Wikipedia editor. See also WP:NOTGUIDE #4: Wikipedia is not an internet guide. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Disappearance of Jim Thompson (designer)[edit]

Hi Animalparty,

Thanks for reviewing the page Disappearance of Jim Thompson (designer).

Please arrange for the article to be deleted.

I’ll continue to work on the original article whenever I’ve the time to do so.


Roysouza (talk) 12:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

How to read the "short description" section?[edit]

Hi Animalparty! I was wondering if you could explain to me what units are being used under "Short description", as I'm not 100% experienced with using FishBase. Thank you! Bananasoldier (talk) 04:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Bananasoldier: There are no units, those are the numbers of spiny rays and soft rays in the dorsal fins, anal fins, etc. See Fin ray for more details. --Animalparty-- (talk) 04:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh! Wow, now I feel very silly. Thank you very much! Bananasoldier (talk) 04:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
@Animalparty: Just one more thing: where can I find the FishBase species I.D. from the given link? Bananasoldier (talk) 04:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
@Bananasoldier: It's a bit indirect but if you hover over many of the species-specific links on the page (e.g. Common name or synonyms), the url should appear at the bottom of the page, with the ID number in it (in this case ID=4197). Clicking one of those links similar shows the URL (e.g. Common names of Liparis mucosus.

Berkley Media Studies Group[edit]

Hello, I'm interested in why you removed one of the citations from this stub. Is there a WP policy or guideline against citing the source of an article? If not, please undo, and let's discuss it on the talk page first. Thanks, and have a great day. Darknipples (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I've responded at the talk page. Cheers. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Original research tagging[edit]

Hi AP, I noticed that you added a couple of tags to the article I recently created The X-Files sources and analogues. While i can understand your concerns regarding some of the sources, I don't know how the original research tag stands as I cited the statements in the article even if some of the sources require replacement. Please bring up your concerns on the talk page of the article so that the tags can be clarified. Thanks--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I've added more reliable sources to back up the self-published one, so is OK to remove the self-published tag? If you still have any issues witht eh citations, then please share on the talk page--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

IUCN citation template[edit]

Good morning! Wonderful rain we're having. I was wondering if you could help me format a citation for, or if it's okay to copy & paste the citation the page gives at the bottom (NatureServe 2013. Elassoma evergladei. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.3. <>. Downloaded on 30 January 2015.). Thanks for everything! Bananasoldier (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done No worries! I figured it out! Bananasoldier (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


Also, what do you think of the Liparis_marmoratus#Description I wrote? Would it be considered WP:close paraphrasing, or is it acceptable to have information from only one source? Very little information is published about the fish because of its rarity. Bananasoldier (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done Bananasoldier (talk) 21:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for advice: Speedy deletion nomination of Molarity (disambiguation)[edit]

Regarding the speedy deletion nomination of Molarity (disambiguation), I will first confess that I have only a little experience crafting disambiguations.

Second, there is indeed a primary topic, as the chemistry term "molarity" will more frequently be the object of a search. However, the page for Molarity simply redirects to molar concentration. So if I put a notice on the primary "molarity" article to the effect of "Molarity may also refer to Molarity (comic strip)," almost nobody will ever read it. I decided to create a disambiguation page. Perhaps if I had more experience, I might have made a better decision.

Can you suggest a better method to disambiguate? For example, should I edit the "molar concentration" article to include a reference to the comic strip?

Third, your message refers to a button reading "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". I cannot find such a button. Beamjockey (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Beamjockey: I have already added a dab to molar concentration. Dab pages are generally not needed when only two titles share the same name: see WP:2DABS. I hope this helps! --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
@Animalparty: Thanks for taking care of that. Somebody has since killed Molarity (disambiguation), so I think all is well now. Beamjockey (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I think Wiktionary is[edit]

fine for supergroup regardless of the number of definitions it has. I'm unsure about creating a WP article for it though. ComfyKem (talk) 10:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Lineville College[edit]

Thanks for the note about references. I cleaned it up and added a second reference. Can I remove your warning note at the top? Haiku Tea (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Haiku Tea: No not yet: both references are still Primary sources. the article needs references that don't come from the school brochure, nor the notes of a student who went there. You should certainly not copy the text of a brochure word for word. We need book, news, or reliable internet coverage of the College itself. If you spend time in libraries, you might find third party information in a book on the history of Alabama. There are some sources that at least mention the college briefly on Google Books, you should consult those and similar to find enough info to construct an article. When was the college built? Is it still around and if not when did it close? If these facts cannot be verified, the article has little chance of expanding. --Animalparty-- (talk) 23:24, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I will change the structure of the wording as it is the brochure text and look for more references. I closed in the early 1900's. Haiku Tea (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Haliplus variegatus[edit]

Thanks for the review and input. Now it looks much better. Sorry that didn't went all the way to the bottom.--Mishae (talk) 04:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Reviving WikiProject Paleontology Paleontologists Taskforce[edit]


I noticed you have edited the Paleontologists taskforce page, and have indicated interested in science biographies, so I wanted to let you know that I am interested in gathering interest in this taskforce to help improve the quality of Wikipedia's coverage of paleontologists. The taskforce now has a template to tag articles, and I hope to help expand the articles within the scope of this project. Hza a 9 (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I've responded on the talk page, and am looking forward to this. --Animalparty-- (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Qari mufti aqeel[edit]

You tagged Qari mufti aqeel for deletion, but tag was removed. I added a tag again. Please help me keep an eye on this article.--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


Sunandclouds.svg Sunshine!
Hello Animalparty! Gug01 (talk) has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding {{subst:User:Meaghan/Sunshine}} to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing! Gug01 (talk) 00:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


There's the question! The Dutch wikipedia page is nl:Duivelsberg (heuvel). The German page is de:Wylerberg. The border area is both Dutch and German speaking. I don't want to start off a Dutch-German border incident (I'm sure the Allies don't want to have to retake the hill all over again) which is why I used both names. Let me look at the precedents. Fiachra10003 (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

"Breeding" and "Nonbreeding" fish?[edit]

Hi Animalparty! I was wondering if you could explain the terms "breeding" and "nonbreeding" fish as mentioned in the "description" paragraph: [1]. Are they referring to mature vs. juveniles? Thanks, --Bananasoldier (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Bananasoldier: I believe that's referring to males of some species changing in color or morphology during breeding season, similar to some birds (a breeding plumage molting to a less colorful plumage). So it would apply to mature individuals, but not necessarily year-round. --Animalparty-- (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
@Animalparty: Thank you! Bananasoldier (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


I don't think that saying "Please stop inferring generalities from very specific papers" was very nice of you. First of all, I assume that you are aware that I follow the guidelines no worse then anyone else here, and I cite books and journals which are appropriate. I don't now what you mean by "consulting a single other source" and using "big picture" sources? Back when I started editing here, I used BugGuide and as an RS but people told me that its not reliable, (same thing with EUNIS and ITIS). And since beetles are not covered by news sources and majority of scientific papers (since they don't extract any venom that can be useful in medical journals (unlike ants)) its virtually impossible to find another reliable source. I'm sorry if my stubs make you feel angry at me for generalizing and probably are simply written, but I sometimes don't find anything that is of use. I can try visit my college library at some point though. Chances are at null though there...:( This is as far as this species will go: Dicerca pugionata.--Mishae (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mishae: I'm sorry if I came across as angry. By big picture sources I mean a source that is large enough in scope to reliably make meaningful assertions. The article you cite at Dicerca pugionata concerns only bugs recorded in Pennsylvania, which is not incorrect but which omits all the places the bugs are also found. While the BugGuide page for Dicerca pugionata may not be a reliable source, like any good Wikipedia article it will cite reliable sources like this one, which gives the whole range for the species on page 279.
I have previously observed you generalizing or incorrectly inferring from primary literature (see my previous comments on your own talk page). For instance, stating color, (e.g. Athous angulifrons, Athous tauricola) from sources that merely include a picture, runs the risk of incorrectly characterizing reality: a species could be variously colored, or differ between sexes, or the lighting/color of the photo could be poor, etc., thus making assertions not explicitly verified can be problematic. Another instance, the "endemic to Macedonia" status of Athous turcicus appears based on the first two photos here but is falsified by the third image).
You've contributed many articles to Wikipedia, which no doubt expand the encyclopedia and serve as useful starting points, but thus it is all the more important to ensure each of your creations are well-sourced and measured in their statements, in case unnoticed, uncorrected misrepresentations are perpetuated in the many mirrors of Wikipedia. --Animalparty-- (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
O.K. I have fixed Athous turcicus article. To be honest, its latin name implies that its native to Turkey but I can't find sources that might confirm that.--Mishae (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

What is a better source for film credits than IMDB?[edit]

That headline pretty much says it all.  :-) Msalt (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Msalt: Basically any source that is not user-generated. A news article, or other source with a reputation for integrity. Please see WP:RS/IMDB for rationale, and WP:RELIABLE for how to identify reliable sources. Cheers. --Animalparty-- (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, I removed the IMDB links (except under external links) and replaced them with reliable sources. OK for me to remove the tag, or do you want to check it out yourself? Msalt (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
@Msalt: the sourcing at Dax Jordan is much better now. You should also remove embedded external links (especially to sites that merely direct viewers to watch films), in line with WP:ELPOINTS #2. and WP:LINKSTOAVOID. All the best, --Animalparty-- (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
@Animalparty: Thanks again for your help. I removed the embedded external link, so I'm going to remove that sourcing/IMDB tag. Please correct me or revert if that's inappropriate. Thanks! Msalt (talk) 04:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
@Msalt: Sounds good to me. All the best, --Animalparty-- (talk) 04:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Gonzalo Giribet[edit]

I have seen that you tagged the above article for primary sources. I'm wondering what is considered a reliable source for academics, considering that they are not covered by major news publications (except for Dr.OZ/Dr.Phil)?--Mishae (talk) 02:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Mishae: I'll assume you're familiar with WP:SCHOLAR, which the article hasn't yet explicitly demonstrated. There are a few reliable, secondary sources (e.g. Harvard Gazette and other Harvard publications, not necessarily independent) that discuss some aspects of Giribet's work, which is a good start. Reliable sources about academics are no different than other reliable sources: e.g. books, news, or scientific publications. Assuming WP:SCHOLAR is satisfied, excessive discussion of primary literature is still discouraged and qualified per WP:PRIMARY in that they only verify research has occurred, not the significance of the research, which can only be demonstrated by secondary sources. You also misrepresent facts and/or offer your own analysis by stating things like "he proved X in a paper", which any scientist or science writer will tell you is almost never correct: individual studies may strongly suggest things, support hypotheses, or disprove (falsify) hypotheses, but almost never prove something (under the Popperian scientific method). It's quite possible that the conclusions of one paper are refuted or modified by subsequent research, even by the same author! The best way to fairly, proportionally assess a scholar's prominence is to cite how his/her research is received. Cite what other people say about his research. Search for reviews of his books or works. Look for verification of editing prominent journals, or receipt of prestigious awards. If you can't say anything about a paper of aspect of research other than that it was published, it's probably best not to discuss it until it can be properly contextualized by secondary sources. These comments apply to all Biography articles of scientists, in the aims of neutrally, proportionally, and accurately conveying exactly how and why a scholar is notable. Cheers. --Animalparty-- (talk) 04:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, the sources for academics are a bit different from the rest. For example, academics unlike athletes are not appearing in major publications outside of their scientific field. I have seen in my lifetime only 4 academics on public TV, which means there will 1 entry in New York Times for example for an academic while there will be a ton for either sports or political figure. So yes, scientific publications is the main (if not the only way) to write about them. Also, I would like to apologize for any misrepresentation. I like science a lot, but since English is my second language it was difficult for me to find an alternative to discovered. I will bear it in mind though that using support is better then proven. The good thing about me is that I don't have COI problems with any topic, that's why I edit multiple topics and am being neutral as possible.--Mishae (talk) 05:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
@Mishae: There's nothing wrong with using scientific publications to verify content. The published views of fellow scientists are probably more important than any coverage in the New York Times or mass media, which don't always present a full or accurate picture. The issue here is not reliability or verifiability but neutrality by not arbitrarily highlighting or cherry-picking papers by the subject. A given paper may be groundbreaking or total bunk or relatively unremarkable in the field, and the best way to evaluate due and undue weight, would be to cite scientific review articles or scholarly books (or even news), e.g. something that clearly says "the papers by Joe Scientist were important in developing this aspect of their field" (and such statements will exist if a person is notable). We as editors should never infer importance from a primary source (publication by the subject) unless it is supported by reliable sources. --Animalparty-- (talk) 05:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, Google Scholar is a good source, but only as an external link. Gonzalo does have a high h-index to be honest. So, where in the world did you saw a review of an article? Like, I have a ton of scientific peer reviewed journals but non of them say "the papers by Joe Scientist were important in developing this aspect of their field". They do state specific scientific discovery though.--Mishae (talk) 06:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say I've seen a review that responds to any of Giribet's work, only that one will exist if he is notable (and I do not doubt he is!). Google Scholar is but one way to find sources. Google Books is another (7th place in a windsurfing championship!). A JSTOR or Web of Science search, should you have institutional access, is probably better. You might try browsing sources that cite his works (perhaps focusing on or filtering for review articles), or reviews of his co-edited book on Harvestmen, and its likely (but not necessarily so) that his most-cited works are most influential. In line with WP:PRIMARY and WP:SELFPUB, limited usage of primary and/or self-published sources is fine as long as it is not excessive, unduly promotional or one-sided, nor the basis of any analysis. Primary sources simply say what happened- secondary sources show why it matters, and make for much better articles. At this point I don't think there is any argument over notability, but I hope I've given you some good suggestions. Cheers. --Animalparty-- (talk) 07:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Wondering why you continuing removing Sarah Boyer from a list of doctoral students. Some articles like Hans Westerhoff have a whole list and, no one complains.--Mishae (talk) 22:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Let's keep discussion of the article on the article's talk page. Thanks. --Animalparty-- (talk) 22:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Alister Clark Memorial Rose Garden[edit]

Dear Animalparty, I've read your banner and responded to it by commenting in the article's Talk section. Let me know what you think. Erictimewell (talk) 08:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Steve Harrison (advertising)[edit]

Hi there, I've replaced what I think is the incorrect link I placed on the page I am creating, please can you let me know if there are any other links that are incorrect or unrelaible before placing the unreliable link header? Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedJulianG40 (talkcontribs) 09:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Deletion via redirect[edit]

I think if you are going to delete an article by redirecting it without moving the content to the redirected page, you should have to go through AfD or at least give an explanation. The name has a history, and maybe the page should be a disambiguation page for the various species, or maybe the name developed more in the genus article, but, again, if you are just going to delete all the content by redirecting the page and not moving any content, then explain why, and we can go to AfD. MicroPaLeo (talk) 08:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@MicroPaLeo: my apologies if my bold redirect was abrupt, but I figured the two sentences, lacking citations, at Split rock plant that say X is a common name of most or all members of a genus was better off just redirecting to the genus. Afd is a last resort when measures to improve articles (including merging) have failed, and we certainly shouldn't go to Afd for any removal of content. In some case a common name article is warranted if many unrelated organisms share similar common names, but when the entirety of Split rock plant can be addressed in a sentence of Pleiospilos, I'd say that is most prudent: both articles are largely talking about the same group of plants. I feel the more stepping stone articles we create, the more difficult it can be to navigate between articles and quickly find content. You may feel differently, and if so might want to bring it up with regular WP Plants contributors for greater consensus. Cheers. --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
It was a new article, and I was looking for a great source, but ithe source is in a foreign language. The names have a cool and long story, but the only sources appear to be Bantu languages. I see this a lot on Wikipedia, redirects without any respect to existing content, and I wish editors would at least acknowledge that something was there instead of boldly going "wipe, you're gone." What I wrote is not in the current article, no attachment to species, the common names in the genus article are just a list with no context, and the name primarily refers to the one species, sourceable in English. People are interested in common names. At this point, I cannot find the Non-English sources, and I have lost interest, which is easy to do on Wikipedia (I was sorting moths and people were seriously worried that editors not working on moth articles might have heart attacks that anyone was sorting moth articles according to the existing scheme, so I abandoned the category to them to pull the 2000 moths out of the 4000 insects. However, since none are editing moth articles, I am not holding my breath.)
Please just use some method to indicate you considered the existing content and why you wiped it out. It is not in the genus article. MicroPaLeo (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
@MicroPaLeo: Redirects, while mostly invisible, are not irretrievably gone, and their edit history is still accessible after a redirect. You're welcome to add well-sourced content to the genus article, or any article, at any time, and Non-English sources are allowed (although the content should still probably focus on English language use per WP:NOTDIC), and if the names have a cool story, it would probably be just as welcome as info on cultural use, history of discovery, taxonomy, biology, and all the other aspects of a subject. I still think the best place to discuss the name(s) of a plant is at the plant article, not a separate article for a name of a plant. Since almost all the plant articles in the genus are stubs/Start, there is more to be improved at all levels before content should be split. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Michele Raffin[edit]

Quick question; I have just created this article but don't know where it fits. Is being bird rescuer is the same as being an ornithologist? Like, she was featured in the New York Times, which establishes her notability, but the profession is confusing. Can you help? Thanks.--Mishae (talk) 03:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Strange, you never explained the reason behind removal of LCCN parameter. Why you did it? According to {{cite book}} it can be present there, can't it?--Mishae (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
i did it purely for aesthetics but I won't object if you want to restore it. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I decided to restore it since not every book I think have library of congress number (or they do but is not specified). Besides, for majority of our readers it will be easier to find that way then to go through a whole ISBN list.--Mishae (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

John R Clarke[edit]

Hi Animalparty and thank you for reviewing John R Clarke. Our User:Gene Hobbs is Gene Hobbs, but probably wouldn't think to mention that to you. You can see from his article that he has no COI when writing about John Clarke, although I'd be surprised if Gene didn't know him. It's worth remembering our guidance on self-published sources that are used to support claims about themselves. Such sources are normally acceptable as long as their claims are not extraordinary, unduly self-serving, or of doubtful authenticity - and the article isn't based principally on them. I think you'll find that is being used within those guidelines, but I'm sure that Gene would find it helpful if you pointed out any specific instance that you considered went beyond them. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Animalparty, Thank you for your note. I am very familiar with each of those guidelines. I am also familiar with the stance on Facebook however I could not find another source that proved he is still an active diver. Can you?
Yes, I do know John since he is an active researcher in my field. If you were in this field you would know him as well. It is not exactly like we are a big group and we are not growing since most are retiring. How exactly would you suggest I pick the articles I write if being notable in a small field and me not knowing them are the criteria?
Thanks for the review! Take care. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
@Gene Hobbs: If certain facts cannot be reliably sourced, even if true, then they should probably be omitted from an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or research, which precludes personal communications (unless such communication were to be published in a reliable source). Writing about people you know personally or professionally presents at least the potential for non-neutrality (e.g. conscious or unconscious bias towards positive coverage, or disproportionate view of a subject's notability and due weight of content), and is discouraged per WP:COISELF. Some advice for connected editors is discussed at WP:COIADVICE. I would recommend not creating any more articles of colleagues in your small field, although you can increase the notability (as well as verifiability) of such people in other formats, e.g. publishing a biography in a peer reviewed journal or industry magazine to create at least a degree of separation, which can then be used by non-affiliated editors to write an article. You might also request that less-connected people create Wikipedia articles, either in "real life" or at WikiProject Scuba diving or other relevant WikiProjects. If you choose to continue to create articles you are closely connected with, you might submit them to Articles for Creation first, and/or solicit more peer-review before "going live", to better ensure neutrality. You might also re-examine your articles to remove or rewrite anything that can reasonably be interpreted as promotional, subjective, undue, or one-sided, and focus on the highest quality, most independent sources available, even at the risk of a shorter article. I don't mean to criticize your contributions as a whole, as you undoubtedly have welcome expertise that can improve articles, but hope you realize how intimate knowledge of certain subjects can impede the creation of impartial and proportional representation of said subjects. All the best, --Animalparty-- (talk) 00:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply! Does not bother me in the least that you second guess my contributions. Making note on the Rubicon page is also a nice addition. That was the first article I wrote and cut my teeth on. I'm willing to bet many authors back then did something similar back then. Everyone has to learn somewhere. Just too bad the community has a habit of eating its young now. I'd love nothing more than to go back and make the Rubicon page better knowing what I know nine years, 30 new articles, and 3300+ edits later but also have not because of those same rules. I'm rarely on here anymore because I spend more time replying to this kind of post than making quality improvements. I stand by my prior work and would love to see where I am not perceived as neutral. Would love it even more if people didn't complain about it and actually fixed issues. I really don't see myself changing my habits for picking articles. I have a few editors I ask for assistance when I feel it is needed (have sent numerous emails asking them to intervene when I felt it was too close to a COI for me. That leaves the real work to fall to others to remove anything I post if they think it is too bad to remain here. Since I am so rarely here anymore, I'm betting nobody will be heartbroken over my occasional work. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

RE: Partial title matches and disambiguation[edit]

Hallo Animalparty.

Thank you for your comment on my talk page. Sorry, that I haven´t replied sooner but I have been visiting family.

Firstly; I wasn´t aware of the guidelines on partial title matches. Thank you for bringing these to my attention.

I can see that some of the DAB-pages I have created are in clear violation here since these fall under "search index". This was made intentionally by me (without me knowing about the guidelines) simply because I thought it would be a good idea. The three examples you mentioned (Branchial Buccopharyngeal and Proper artery) where actually some I wondered if it would be to go a bit to far. This is especially true for Brachial. But I thought; why it might be unnecessary there wouldn´t be any harm in doing it. So all was done in good faith.

I have however made a lot of DABs like Common digital arteries where I think it makes a lot of sense and still follows the guidelines. How do you see this example?

You are absolutely right than many of the DABs would be better as either glossary or index articles. It was my idea that some of the DABs would evolve into such in time. I just didn´t have the time to do so myself at the moment, so creating the DABs seemed like a step in the right direction. Then WP:Anatomy would have a indexed list of perhaps 500 DABs that we could run through to "upgrade" into glossary or index articles; while the DABs wasn´t perfect they would at least be better than nothing in my opinion; the same way that one-line stubs about a subject it better than nothing at all.

Sorry for the long post. Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jakob. I'm not an active editor in Anatomy articles, but I think all these dab pages should be discussed as a group at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy, so that those editors most familiar with the terminology and the existing article structure can figure out which pages should be dabs or set indexes, and/or which should be combined, deleted, etc. All the best.--Animalparty-- (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Help with image[edit]

Hey AP. I could use some help improving this section. I need to resize the image to fit the section and adjust it for readers to see Deep Space 1, especially it's solar panels more clearly. Also I'm aiming for it not to stick out too much into the next section. If there's anything you can do about it, I'm very grateful. Thanks AP.--Nadirali نادرالی (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

List of dinosaur specimens idea[edit]

I responded to your comment on the List of dinosaur specimens and I wondered what you think about my suggestion that the article could be split into more meaningful and specific lists. Abyssal (talk) 13:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


A gummi bear holding a sign that says "Thank you"
Thank you for using VisualEditor and sharing your ideas with the developers.

Hello, Animalparty,

The Editing team is asking very experienced editors like you for your help with VisualEditor. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and try to fix these small things, too. 

You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.

More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.

Unsubscribe from this list Sign up for VisualEditor's multilingual newsletterTranslate the user guide

Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


Clownscloudsblahblah Yoor Know Phool
Have a humorous day filled with lots of PHUN on this April Fools Day 2015. Any annoyance is purely coincidental.   Bfpage |leave a message  20:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)