User talk:DaMatriX

This user is from the Netherlands. This user is of Frankish ancestry. nl Deze gebruiker heeft het Nederlands als moedertaal. en-3 This user is able to contribute with an advanced level of English. This user is excessively addicted to Wikipedia. This user is a donor to Wikipedia. You can be one too. This user trusts Wikipedia as a reliable source. This user despises vandalism and reverts it with extreme pride. This editor is a Novato and is entitled to display this Wikipedia Picture Story Book. This user is a WikiOgre. I am a.. WikiVampire Slayer! and vow to end their tyranny! This user's mobility is restricted. PDD NOS This user has PDD-NOS. This user has been tested and is a Certified Nerd. This user is an escaped genetic experiment. This user supports Stem Cell research. This user supports the fight against breast cancer. This user supports Medical marijuana This user drinks Sake. Beer respects me. This user enjoys heavy metal music. COB This user follows the reaper This user is most likely listening to Opeth right now. This user is interested in, but does not believe in, conspiracy theories. 2012 This user knows what is going to happen in 2012. This user is interested in Buddhism. This user believes in reincarnation. This user is interested in astronomy. This user, based on evidence and current consensus, thinks that the Universe began with a bang. This user is glad that Pluto isn't a planet. Don't worry Pluto, I'm not a planet either. This user thinks the moons of the Solar System are more interesting than the planets. This user visits Astronomy Picture of the Day every day. † This user is interested in meteorology. This user really enjoys dark and stormy nights. This user finds tornadoes to be fascinating. This user honestly just doesn't care anymore about what shape the Earth is. Let it go, man. This user knows that a positron is an electron moving backwards in time. And so should you! This user believes that String theory will be the answer to mankind's quest for a Theory of everything This user accepts Evolution as a biological fact. This user is interested in linguistics. This user is interested in maps. This user is interested in historical research. This user is interested in ancient civilizations. This user is interested in ancient Rome. This user is interested in the Dutch Empire. Windows 7 was this user's idea. C:\>_ This user uses DOS. (or knows how to use it.) This user loves using Google Earth. This user uses BitComet This user contributes using Mozilla Firefox. This user is a Monty Python fan. Allo, Allo! This user says "Hellawh!" This user demands you Respect my authoritah! TA Bak user derka derka derka! This user is a fan of Blackadder OZ This user is an inmate at the Oswald State Correctional Facility, lvl 4. This user wants to believe. Verifiability is policy. Supernatural This user is a fan of the Supernatural TV Series. This user is a Stargate Atlantis fan. Pulp Fiction This user knows that in France, they call a Quarter Pounder a Royale With Cheese because of the metric system. This user enjoys reading Fantasy. This user enjoys reading science fiction. This user is a fan of the Iliad. R This user is a cross between a Ravenclaw and a Slytherin, so watch out, punk S DON'T PANIC This user attempts not to panic with the aid of several towels. This user enjoys the Lord of the Rings book and movie series. This user believes Tolkien's Balrogs have wings. The Silmarillion This user not only likes The Lord of the Rings, but The Silmarillion as well. This user is a servant of the ruthless House Fëanor. This user took the red pill, not the blue pill. This user supports the Galactic Empire. This user actually liked The Phantom Menace. This user is interested in the belief that there is no light or dark side of the Force, but only a single Unifying Force. This user has been assimilated. Resistance is futile. BOTH This user likes both Star Trek and Star Wars and is frustrated when told that's not allowed. ★ This user is a fan of Dragon Ball, Dragon Ball Z, and Dragon Ball GT. This user enjoys siesta. This user is an unskilled worker, and damn good at it. This user has read and understood the BIG HUGE FREAKING PURPLE BOX. Have you? Too many userboxes This user may have too many userboxes ... nah, no way!! Iи Sоviэт Яцssiд, Цsэяьож дdd УОЦ!!

Biesbosch

Thank you for contributions to Biesbosch. There are some things I don't really understand, and I'd like you to explain: What are saltisch sea-arms? I guess it is a translation from Dutch, but it makes little sense in English. Can you refer to a source for the information, or explain what you meant?

Jens Nielsen 19:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I've edited it again now, according to your explanation. I think the correct word for "sea-arm" would be inlet, or in some cases estuary - please see if that fits what you mean. Dutch 'zoutwater' is sea water in English. I'll have a look at the articles you suggested at some later time.

Jens Nielsen 19:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Radius of Galaxies

Hi, I'm the guy that tweaked some things in the M31 article. I've noticed that in almost all galaxy articles the words "diameter" and "radius" are used as if they have the same meaning. This is obviously not the case, so the value for "radius" is almost always given as the diameter! (e.g. a galaxy with a diameter of 10.000 lightyear is stated to have a radius of 10.000 lightyear instead of 5000) I have corrected this in a few articles, but everyone keeps doing it wrong. What could we do about it?

Hopefully I wasn't part of the problem. Usually if I can track down the user who keeps making a basic mistake like that (by means of the history tab) then I leave them a very polite note in their talk page. Most people seem to take it well.

I have another question. Athough my English is at a fairly good level, it is far from perfect (my native language being Dutch). I have a wide range of interests, and I like to participate where I can for Wikipedia. However, in some cases my edits are containing quite some spelling and grammar mistakes. Some (not very polite) users said to me in response that "I should go back to the Dutch-language wikipedia". What is your view on this issue?

I've seen some pretty bad errors and horrid writing by native English speakers on Wikipedia, and I'm hardly free from commiting mistakes myself. Your English skills seem reasonably good to me, so if you feel comfortable contributing in English then I think you should stick with it. Also you could probably contribute significantly by translating articles and information between English and Dutch. (C.f. Wikipedia:Translation into English/Dutch.)

Unfortunately there are a few ill-mannered people who participate in Wikipedia. Over time I've just come to accept that as part of life on the internet and I try not to let it upset me too much. Thank you. — RJH 17:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Lunar craters

I'm not sure if you'd be interested in this or not, but I thought I'd ask. There's a project myself and others have been working for several years called "List of craters on the Moon". Most of the crater pages are also linked to a biography page about the person for whom it was named. We've got most of those biographical pages created, but there are still a few hold-outs that are proving difficult to find good information in English. Among these are several craters named after Dutchmen:

• Phocylides (crater) — Johannes Phocylides Holwarda (Jan Fokker) (1618-1651), Dutch astronomer.
• Stein (crater) — Johan Willem Jakob Antoon Stein (1871-1951), Dutch physicist, mathematician, astronomer and educator.
• Van den Bergh (crater) — George van den Bergh (1890-1966), Dutch astronomer.
• Van Wijk (crater) — Uco van Wijk (1924-1966), Dutch-American astronomer and educator.

If you are at all interested in tackling these biography pages, I'd greatly appreciate it. On the other hand if those aren't of interest to you, then it's not a problem at all. Thank you!. — RJH 22:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Globular clusters

Hi DaMatriX,

I noticed you added a paragraph to the morphology section regarding a "completely new type of star cluster in the Andromeda Galaxy". Do you have a reference for this? It sounds a lot like a stellar association, although much less dense. Also, since they are not technically globular clusters, wouldn't it make more sense to add that to the star cluster page? — RJH (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I did find a source (A.P. Huxor, N.R. Tanvir, M.J. Irwin, R. Ibata (2005). "A new population of extended, luminous, star clusters in the halo of M31". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 360: 993-1006.)

Thanks DaMatriX. Now that I think about it, the globular clusters page probably needs a section on intermediate forms where the line is blurred between the different cluster types. I also need to add some comments about globular clusters generally having relatively low amounts of dark matter. — 14:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"false sabre-tooths"

Wouldn't be more appropriate to call them "false sabre-tooth cats"? Since they do have "legitimate" sabre teeth, but they're not cats, though they look like? --Extremophile 20:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. They don't have false sabre-tooths.....their tooths are real enough. They are false sabre-tooth cats. Sounds logical to me (hmm that sounds like a Vulcan..;))DaMatriX 00:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Screwed up cladogram

In an attempt to edit the cladogram, reflecting the recent changes, I managed to screw things up completely. I'm full of frustration right now: after more than an hour of editting I just can't find the mechanism behind the nice cladogram at the main page. It looks real simple, but every time I edit something, the whole thing screws up. Aaarghhh!!! Can comeone PLEASE fix the cladogram for me, before I'm going to throw my keyboard through my monitor?

(The bottleneck is the Pinnepedia clade) DaMatriX 21:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you need done? - UtherSRG (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think I have what you want. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, UtherSRG! DaMatriX 15:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Recommendation Concerning the Uintatheres

What's your opinion on merging Uintatheriidae with Dinocerata?--Mr Fink 02:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'd consider merging them, as one, both pages say pretty much the same thing, and two, whenever people talk of Gobiatheriidae, they always refer to the sole genus, Gobiatherium, and we already have Gobiatheriidae/nae redirecting to the genus.--Mr Fink 16:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You want the honor of merging them, or do you want me to do it?--Mr Fink 16:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What sort of beasties you need? At the moment, I'm in a Paleozoic frenzy.--Mr Fink 18:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll put the dog-bear and proto-seal on my list, then. I'm also doing Cenozoic animals, too, depending on my muse's mood.--Mr Fink 20:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

minor taxa

Please only list minor taxa between the article subject and the next high major taxa. Minor taxa should not be used otherwise, lest we overly clutter the taxobox. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Am I not clear? I guess an example will clarify. If the subject of the article is an order, then it is appropriate to put superorder and subclass in the taxobox. If the article is about a family, then it is not appropriate to put the superorder or subclass, but suborder and superfamily are appropriate. Clearer? - UtherSRG (talk) 17:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Bats

The problem with including bats in the list of mammals that apparently diversified during the Paleocene is that the earliest bat fossils are late early Eocene in age. So it may be that they diversified during the Paleocene. In fact, it seems that they should have. But, because that section in the Mammalia article mainly discusses "groups of mammals that appeared in the fossil record," (my italics) it seems that the only mammals that should be under individual time-period (epoch, etc.) headings are those with a FAD in that time. Hypothesizing that bats appeared in the Paleocene is probably a good bet, but that has not yet been verified by the fossil record. Tomwithanh 01:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Bats part 2

You're suggestion sounds reasonable, and I'll be happy to check over however you wind up incorporating it, if you were thinking you'd want to do that. If I get some more time, I'll also be more than happy to more critically read the rest of that section; it just happens I'm most familiar with the bat record. Tomwithanh 00:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ligurian Sea

Article says: The sea borders the countries Italy, France, and Monaco, and the Tyrrhenian and Mediterranean Seas

Surely the Ligurian AND the Tyrrhenian are both part of the Mediterranean. Ordinary Person 23:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Ligurian Sea is part of the Mediterranean Sea. However, it can also be considered a seperate sea. It depends on the person you ask. Most people will say: yes, the Ligurian Sea is part of the Mediterranean, just as (for example) the Tyrrhenian Sea and the Ionian Sea are. However, the major part of the Mediterranean has no "alternative name" and is just known as the "Mediterranean Sea". So in a sence the text of the article is true: "the Ligurian Sea borders the Mediterranean Sea", despite the fact that it can also be considred a part of that sea. DaMatriX 17:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit of Hyrax article

In this edit you added some (uncited) material about the creature's relationship to Elephants, with the final sentence "Citations would be helpful to wikify this article." You shouldn't leave comments about the article in the article.

I think you should have put the info that needed a citation on the talk page and discussed it there. --JamesHoadley 11:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks DaM --JamesHoadley 02:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Evolution of mammals

I've added an article Evolution of mammals, because there's too much content to squeeze into the Mammal article. Please review and comment.

Once there's a reasonable degree of agreement about Evolution of mammals, I propose to reduce the "Evolution" section of Mammal to a link to and brief summary of Evolution of mammals.Philcha 11:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response!

I'll check the "Evolution" section of Mammal. Re many mesozoic mammals that are highly specialised, I know about Castorocauda (mentioned in Evolution of mammals because of fur, size, semi-aquatic lifestyle) and Repenomamus (omitted to save space). Are there others that are important enough to justify making the article even longer and, if so, can you point me to sources of information?

Re "two periods of rapid diversification: well before and well after the extinction of the dinosaurs", I thought I'd mentioned that under "Molecular phylogenetic timescale" and given a reference. Did I miss something? I deliberately placed all the theories based on molecular phylogenetics at the end: (a) I think they're interesting but not proven until backed up by fossil evidence; (b) I don't want to confuse readers by presenting two accounts of over 70M years of evolution at the same time, and thought it best to complete the "traditional" fossil-based story before dealing with the new ideas from molecular phylogenetics.

I'll also check out the "convergent evolution" material in Mammal.Philcha 22:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Merger of Genera

I propose a merger of the genera Caracal, Leptailurus and Profelis into one genus Caracal. The same can be done with the genera Pardofelis and Profelis into one genus Pardofelis. This will be according to the latest genetic assessment, performed by Johnson et al: "The Late Miocene radiation of Modern Felidae: A genetic assessment", which is well supported. DaMatriX 19:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Gimme a week or so to contact the author of the appropriate section of MSW3 and see what they have to say. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Great, thank you! You can also ask them about the inclusion of Uncia in Panthera (?) DaMatriX 18:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Too bad we don't control the official taxonomy...Eriorguez 15:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be changed back to how it was. According to the official taxonomy listed in ITIS (http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=552456), serval is still in the genus Leptailurus. Changing it like you did DaMatriX is just confusing and inaccurate because you don't even provide references to anything that says that the taxonomy was changed. Stormish 18:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I did provide a reference: "The Late Miocene radiation of Modern Felidae: A genetic assessment" [[1]] DaMatriX 15:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Spindoter

Kijk hier eens:

http://www.soortenbank.nl/soorten.php?soortengroep=flora_nl&id=1255&menuentry=groepen

http://www.natuurpuntwal.be/natuurgebieden/kijkverdriet/spindotter.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mweites (talk • contribs) 21:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Geeft niet zoiets is mij ook al eens overkomen ^^ Mweites (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Asperger

Hallo, ik heb even wat links voor je opgezocht, hopelijk heb je er wat aan :)

http://iautistic.com/test_AS.php http://www.okcupid.com/tests/take?testid=1982215450153908026

groetjes, Maico. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mweites (talk • contribs) 19:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

message

I'm sending this to all the wikiproject:mammals participants. There's a naming guideline up for discussion on the talk page, and the more people get involved the more valid any consensus drawn. Ironholds 19:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Notable river deltas

Why are the Truckee and Carson rivers listed as "rivers with notable deltas"? Even if these rivers has deltas, they can hardly be compared to such rivers as the Nile, Mississipi and/or Ganges. All wikipedians who are not familiar with the geography of the American mid-west has probably never heard of the Truckee nor Carson rivers, so including these rivers in the list of rivers with notable deltas seems a bit strange. Besides, the Wikipedia articles on the Truckee and Carson don't mention the existence of a delta at all. DaMatriX (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree and felt the same way when I read it. I will delete the references for us.--Interiot

Naming conventions discussion

Hi, you might be interested since you're an avid mammal article editor. There's a discussion over at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Wikipedia_naming_conventions_for_organisms that you might wanna read over. Shrumster (talk) 08:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Phylogenetic position of Ornithurae

I don't get it. In this article, the Ornithurae are placed as an group containing almost all birds, except the very primitive ones (Archaeopteryx and allies). However, in some articles (like Gansus), the Ornithurae seem to be placed under the Pygostyles, and are even considered a sistergroup of Enantiornithes, containing only the Hesperornithiformes and Carinatae (Ichtyornithes and Neornithes), thus being part of Ornithothoraces.

So, what's the true current consensus? Are Ornithurae a clade containing only the Neornithes (modern birds) and close relatives, or are they a much more ancient clade, containing the Enantiornithes and Confuciusornithidae, thus being the parentclade of Pygostylae?DaMatriX (talk) 20:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any real consensus, and probably won't be until PhyloCode adopts an "official" definition. Right now both definitions (pretty radically different) are both in use as far as I know, by different groups of scientists. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, most articles on Wikipedia seem to use the other defenition (Ornithurae as clade under Pygostylae and Ornithothoraces), so I suggest we do the same here. What's your opinion? DaMatriX (talk) 19:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Phylogeny of birds

I am scratching my head at this edit. What do pumas and jaguars have to do with this? Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry, my mistake! The source has nothing to do with big cats, however I copy-pasted the syntax from an earlier edit of me (on the position of the extinct cat Panthera schaubi), and I forgot to change the discription. It has been corrected by now! Thanks for bringing this error to my attention. Cheers! DaMatriX (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I figured as much. I shouldn't worry, with all these complicated templates it is simpler to cut/pate/edit and mistakes can creep in - I do it myself. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Taxonomy changes

The genus Catopuma has been merged with Pardofelis, according to several sources (such as ). These sources also merge the genus Profelis with Caracal. Perhaps we should implement these changes in the respective articles on Wikipedia? DaMatriX (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for making me aware of this new information. I'd like to review the articles cited by the IUCN website before making these large changes (which means i first need to go to a location for free access to the articles).--Kpstewart (talk) 04:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

On Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals there has been a discussion on this subject. Several issues has been discussed, and several problems are now solved. DaMatriX (talk) 19:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for updating WP Cats on this discussion.--Kpstewart (talk) 02:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Hylonomus Kannemeyeria Miacis Antilocapridae Archonta Metatheria Placerias Palaeoryctoid Plantigrade Kannemeyeriidae Protostome Heteromyidae Robertia Purgatorius Jeholodens Theria Godinotia Balaenidae Galesaurus

Cleanup Monotreme Cynodont Oligokyphus Merge Sciuridae Mya (unit) Upper Rhine Add Sources Dinocephalia Eocene Felis Wikify Monophyly Oliver Holzwarth Michael Wigglesworth Expand Cenozoic Uintatherium Isthmus of Panama

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Blind Stare

The article Blind Stare has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

does not seem to pass WP:MUSIC.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Clubmarx (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Whippomorpha

I was wondering: why does Wikipedia still uses the name Whippomorpha, instead of the (scientific much more correct) name Cetancodonta? DaMatriX (talk) 16:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent question.. Unfortunately, no one is listening.

As admitted in the first sentence, "Whippomorpha (also known as Cetancodonta) is a whimsical name for the clade containing the Cetacea (whales, dolphins, etc.) and their closest living relatives, the Hippopotamuses."

It seems again and again that Wikipedia's leaders, the Arbitration Committee, don't give a Whippomorph's rump about content.24.22.141.252 (talk) 08:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

That seems to be the case indeed, unfortunately. Guess I can just make the adjustments myself? How does one change the title of an article on Wikipedia?DaMatriX (talk) 03:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ruminants

I noticed that most of your contributions on extinct families/genera of ungulates contains quite some spelling and grammar errors (while some of your sentences are actualy quite un-readable). Although this can hardly be called a crime in itself (I am certainly not free of spelling and grammar errors myself, as English is not my native language), it does provide a problem because of the great number of articles that has been edited in this way! Don't get me wrong: I'm not blaming you of writing too much content (which would be, of course, a rather strange thing to do on Wikipedia - the more content people write, the sooner Wikipedia will become the universal collection of all human knowledge). However, it may be a good idea to better check your content before posting it - and certainly before you copy-paste the text into other articles.

Besides these spelling/grammar issues, there is another (more serious) problem I encountered in some (certainly not all!) of your contributions on extinct taxa. Some of the statements you provide, are based on seriously outdated source(s)! And, last but not least, it seems that you don't always follow the rules that apply to taxoboxes! E.g. when the taxobox contains a list of genera at the bottom, it should contain only genera and not (for example) disused subfamilies!

I'm sorry for this, perhaps rather unfriendly, message - I did not intend to be rude. However, as an autist I sometimes lack the ability to express my emotions and opinions correctly - I have often been misunderstood ;) And perhaps I'm just not having my day and the problems I accountered in your contributions are actualy not as severe as I thought.

DaMatriX (talk) 15:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for examining the articles. I just had a really bad day and didn't see the grammatical errors. I'll look for more up-to-date material for ref. Noles1984 (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Announcement

Hello! I'm The Arbiter, one of the coordinators for WikiProject Zoo. I am proud to announce the launch of a new portal: Portal:Zoos and Aquariums! ZooPro, ZooFari, and I worked hard to create a new portal for information on zoos, aquariums, and the associated projects and articles on Wikipedia. If you could head on over, take a look at our work, and maybe learn some more about zoos and Wikiproject Zoo, it would be great! Cheers and Happy Editing!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Arbiter (talk) at 03:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC).

Snow Leopard Taxonomy

if it says that they're in the genus Panthera, then is it still in Uncia? I beg to know? Rory (talk) 06:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It can only be in one (unless Uncia is made a sub-genus of Panthera) but which one is an open question at this point. The latest molecular DNA study seems to indicate that it is sufficiently closely related to Panthers (lion, leopard, jaguar) to warrant inclusion in the genus but it is only one study. I'm a big fan of this type of study but it is not immune from sampling bias or human error, so until there is more supporting evidence, more conservative workers will tend to leave it in Uncia. Hence the ambiguity in the lead sentence, and the explanation under Taxonomy. Secret Squïrrel, approx 10:55, 29 Markh 2009 (Earth Standard Time)

Whatever. Rory (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Generally on WP we follow Mammal Species of the World 3rd edition, which currently keeps it as Uncia: see MSW: Uncia. I've tidied the taxonomy a bit (but couldn't work out an authority for Panthera uncia). It's the same animal, of course, whatever we call it... Richard New Forest (talk) 21:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

A recent study confirmed the results that some earlier studies had obtained: the tiger is the most recent relative of the snow leopard, so it must belong to genus Panthera. See this url: http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8512000/8512455.stm DaMatriX (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's wait until that primary source is incorporated into a listing of some sort, that more than just that scientist says this. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Cloudkicker

(Message to User:MSPhelps) Hi, I was wondering if this draft could be published. Unless you are still working on it, of course. The reason for all this is the fact that I created several references to Cloudkicker in several articles (like the list of post-metal bands). Of course, at this moment they all lead to a non-existing page. So, why not publish this draft as it is, at least for the time being? Besides, one Wikipedia principle states that "something is better than nothing", right? DaMatriX (talk) 00:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)