User talk:WolfmanSF

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WolfmanSF/Archive1 WolfmanSF/Archive2 WolfmanSF/Archive3

Leave a new message

Hi, can you make a comment about my new project[edit]

hi, Hi, can you make a comment about my new project


So I am in process of adding humans to each regional list. Some lists had humans listed before I started, some didn't. Either we take them all out or add it to all the lists. My preference is to add since humans are in fact mammals and populated the world under their/our own means.....Pvmoutside (talk) 06:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The addition of humans is noninformative and pointless; everyone already knows humans are everywhere. Nearly everyone understands the mammals species lists to be lists of nonhuman mammals. WolfmanSF (talk) 06:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
It's not really pointless. It helps people better understand how humans fit in the classification system, and that humans are part of the natural world........Would be nice to be consistent with the info, but apparently that is no going to happen......The beauty of Wikipedia is it usually leaves little for interpretation and tries to explain thinks comprehensively, I guess except in this case......For me, it's really not worth the fight. You win. I'll stop adding humans to every list. So Have fun keeping up with eliminating humans on lists as others add it. I hope you stay on top of it for the long run. It does look kind of foolish and incomplete with humans listed on some lists and not others, but apparently you are OK with it.......I guess us humans are better than all the rest of the mammmals in the world and are too good to be listed.....Pvmoutside (talk) 09:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Which lists include humans? Thanks, WolfmanSF (talk) 10:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Besides the ones I did so far-United States, Alaska, North America, and Saskatchewan....Pvmoutside (talk) 11:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can see, North America has had humans from 2007-02-02 (the start), Alaska since 2007-11-21, Canada since 2010-03-27, Saskatchewan since 2008-08-14 and Georgia since 2013-06-10, and in most of these cases the lists have idiosyncratic styles and the additions were made by major contributors. I'm not going to object too strongly to this situation. There is no one completely obvious answer to which species should be included in mammals lists, and no one style that is best in all respects. Diversity can be good. However, absent some kind of consensus obtained following a discussion, the idea that humans need to be added to all mammal lists I do object to, for the reasons that the presence of humans everywhere is already very well known, and that the lists are usually viewed as being of "wild" mammals, which humans generally are not. Also, the question as to where humans qualify as a "native" species is problematic. So, my inclination is to revert your recent additions. Do you have any further comments on this subject? WolfmanSF (talk) 07:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
As you can see my recent contributions list, I corrected the taxonomy of humans in a lot of these lists (sometimes not fully), however, I didn't add them to the list articles that didn't have them. I'm fine with seeing them removed. Both of you have good points. Anyway, my contribution list might help in tracking a lot of these articles down. – Maky « talk » 07:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
It seems odd that you are finding ways to use arguments to justify leaving Humans in articles not edited by me.......If those articles list them, then they all should-or none of them should. And what do you mean by major contributor? Are you saying those editors are, but I'm not? Seems pretty elitist to me. Humans populating the world is no more problematic than House Mice and Norway Rats, and they are listed on most lists. Your argument that diversity is a good thing. I agree, unless it provides inaccurate information. So Alaska has humans and Massachusetts does not according to the current version of the regional lists. Just because humans were added in 2007 makes it OK, but not OK if it was added in 2014? So if innacurate information was rovided in 2007 its OK to leave it, and if someone tries to correct it in 2015 it should be reverted?...Your only good point is most everyone recognizes humans to be cosmopolitan. Luckily, the regional lists are not looked at very much, so taking the time to fight about this not worth the time...Have fun making the lists inconsistent ......Pvmoutside (talk) 06:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
If consistency is important to you, why don't "we" (you, me or whoever) take them out of all the lists? The fact is, the lists are inconsistent in a number of ways; some list extinct species from the early Holocene, some don't, the treatment of introduced species is not consistent, and there are various differences in style. As you know, they were all originally set up without humans, and that was a choice, not an oversight. I'm well aware that you are the one that added humans to North America at the start, and I haven't complained about that. The few other additions that occurred (until recently) that I know about occurred later and many of these were probably inspired by North America. WolfmanSF (talk) 07:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I'll go through the list I edited early and remove humans now. Had I known about this issue earlier, I would have removed them when I was cleaning up the primate stuff a few days back. – Maky « talk » 08:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Looks like you beat me to it. – Maky « talk » 08:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Leaving humans off the regional lists it is then, although I disagree.....It does look foolish to me without it, I must admit.....Pvmoutside (talk) 12:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
One might similarly argue that we should have feral dogs and cats included in most lists. On some islands, they are a critical part of the ecosystem, threatening other species with extinction. In general, however, I don't think it would be useful. WolfmanSF (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Drymoreomys albimaculatus[edit]

It appears the following species is in a monotypic genus. Any species I am familiar with defaults to the species if the genus is monotypic. Whether or not it is featured is immaterial. It should follow protocol.....I have left a note on User:Ucucha's talk page regarding this and the article for Eremoryzomys. That should be changed to Gray Rice Rat since both the IUCN and Enyclopedia of Life refer it as such.Pvmoutside (talk) 13:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I stand corrected. My experiences come from Wikiproject Birds, where every species has a common name, which categorizes monotypic genera to species. I didn't realize scientific names work a different way.....Seems a little counterintuitive to have common names work one way, and scientific names work another.....

Moving species articles from Latin names to obscure common names[edit]

So I saw the note regarding use of obscure common names. I have a reference using the common name (Mammal Species of the World). You mention the common name referenced is obscure, yet they are often referenced in the article. Wikipedia under WP:COMMONNAME states to reference the most common name for the species. If there is only one, then the choice is obvious? In the case of the Gray Rice Rat it is also referenced as such by EOL and IUCN....seems like a few creditable sources to me.....Pvmoutside (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

MSW3 has a common name for every species. If there isn't any common name in general use, they make up one. That is basically what they're doing for all the "common names" that are based on the Latin genus name. The scientific Latin name is a more appropriate article title in such cases. WP:COMMONNAME does not favor the use of obscure "common names" of species over Latin names as far as I can see. WolfmanSF (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
What about if a common name is listed on the IUCN Red List and The Enclyclopedia of Life. I followed the discussion on Euryoryzomys macconnelli from 2009. It now appears that the IUCN and Encyclopedia of Life have a common name for it, same with gray rice rat. The cites that are used to argue no common name are scientific articles that usually use only scientific names. At some point, if a common name becomes established, and I would argue IUCN and Encyclopedia of Life are pretty established references, then the name should be changed to common name, since Wikiproject Mammals follows common name protocol by consensus. I suppose it can be changed (like the butterfly and plant projects, as all their species are titled with scientific names....Pvmoutside (talk) 12:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I would not object in such a case. However, in these instances I would hesitate to make the change, out of respect for User:Ucucha. WolfmanSF (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate that....I certainly would not want to alienate or discourage him, but a discussion can probably be had....Pvmoutside (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Size rounding[edit]

This has got to be settled. You have multiple times reverted edits by commons WP:Dino editors on dinosaur articles regarding the rounding a significant figures of sizes. I do not intend to sound harsh, but an agreement has to be made. The main reverts I see are on Deinocheirus, where you have been reverted and reverted back. The Nature paper that concerns the sizes you rounded specifically states that the weight was an estimated 6.358 metres (20.86 ft). You insist to round it to 6.4 m. This might follow the policy you are referencing, but there are reasons to keep the estimate true and honest. The precision is not false, as nowadays, it is possible to get that accurate of an estimate by extrapolating the sizes of various related dinosaurs and modern animals. This is increasingly easier the more material is known, and Deinocheirus is known from two nearly complete skeletons that combine with partial overlapping skeleton. Therefore, I think precision is acceptable, and the number should be rounded to no less than the hundredths. IJReid discuss 02:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

We're talking about the difference between 6.358 and 6.4 tonnes, I believe. That represents a difference of about 0.7%. Given that we haven't actually weighed a single individual of this species, we can't possibly know the weight of a given specimen to better than 1% accuracy. We don't know everything about muscle and fat distribution, size of the digestive system, etc. Additionally, if you weigh yourself, you know that your own weight can fluctuate by more than 1% on a daily basis. Big dinosaurs would have been no different.
Also, let's consider the origin of the value we're talking about. The Lee et al. Nature paper, "Resolving the long-standing enigmas of a giant ornithomimosaur Deinocheirus mirificus", gives the mass value for the MPC-D 100/127 specimen of 6,358 kg and they cite the PLOS Biology paper by Benson et al., "Rates of Dinosaur Body Mass Evolution Indicate 170 Million Years of Sustained Ecological Innovation on the Avian Stem Lineage" as the source of that. But the Benson et al. paper doesn't even have that value, as far as I can see. They don't mention Deinocheirus in the actual paper. They do have a compendium of body size measurements in their supplementary material, "Dataset S1". Here they give bone measurements: humerus length and circumference and radius length and circumference. Evidently the mass estimate came from those measurements and some equation.
Benson et al. give a series of mass estimates for other dinosaurs in Table 1; all of these are given to 2 significant figures, and when they talk about error in mass estimates they cite Campione & Evans in BMC Biology ("A universal scaling relationship between body mass and proximal limb bone dimensions in quadrupedal terrestrial tetrapods"). Campione & Evans discuss mass estimate accuracies extensively and talk about percent prediction errors of mass estimates in the 25% range. For example, they give their Brachiosaurus mass estimate as 35780 kg, which corresponds to a range of 26840-44730 kg (in their Table 6). For our purposes, rounding the 35780 off to 36000 would be appropriate; without providing an uncertainty range, even that exaggerates the accuracy of the estimate. WolfmanSF (talk) 04:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I see why you are reverting back, yet I don't fully agree. The nature paper cites Benson et alii not for the weight estimate, but for the info and equations to calculate it. With Brachiosaurus, we would not cite a single weight, unless we were discussing all in length, but indeed place in the range, and note what is considered to be most likely. The difference between 6.358 and 6.4 tonnes is great, when you consider that the former is based on a highly precise value that has derived from a sustainably valid equation, and the latter is only one magazine mention away from being WP:OR. Since so much is known of Deinocheirus, a precise estimate from the equation hold true, as the values input would have to be very precise for there to be a precise output. Also, the larger the animal, the less their weight can change daily. If an elephant daily varied 1%, then that would be the equivalent of a daily variation of 70 kilograms. Deinocheirus was larger than elephants in length and height, and weighed about the same. 0.7% difference is 44 kilograms, which would be nearly impossible for any animal of any size to accomplish over a day. Rounding to 6.36 is nearly out of the question as well, for it, while still less than 0.7%, is a difference of 10 kilograms. It should therefore be best to leave the estimate entirely, and not round any number. IJReid discuss 14:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The equations basing weight on bone measurements are only accurate to in the neighborhood of plus or minus 25% or so, as Campione & Evans make clear. Please look at their paper and Table 6 if you haven't already. WolfmanSF (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Regarding elephant weight fluctuations, consider that one L of water weighs 1 kg and that "Elephants require about 68.4 to 98.8 L (18 to 26 gal.) of water daily, but may consume up to 152 L (40 gal.). An adult male elephant can drink up to 212 L (55 gal.) of water in less than five minutes." (Source) WolfmanSF (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Campione & Evans state that there is a 25% error rate for the estimation method, not plus/minus 25%. Plus/minus 25% is very different from 25% inaccurate, with the former being a complete misinterpretation of what they say. This means that even if it is not 6.358 tonnes and is instead 6.348 tonnes, the original is incorrect nonetheless. Also, maybe an elephant was a bad comparison, as it is more like a sauropod in that its weight is made up nearly all by its thorax, with Deinocheirus also having a long and bulky neck, tail, and huge forelimbs in comparison. IJReid discuss 23:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
They talk about "mean percent prediction error" and a "25% mean prediction error" - that means average error expressed as a per cent is 25%. They also state that the mass ranges in Table 6 incorporate the 25% mean prediction error. The range for Brachiosaurus, mass estimate given as 35780 kg, is 26840-44730 kg, which which corresponds to (0.75 x 35780) to (1.25 x 35780) kg. Do the algebra. I interpreted it correctly. WolfmanSF (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for reconsidering. However, it really should be 2 significant digits, following the practice of Benson et al. (since we aren't including any indication of the uncertainty). WolfmanSF (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference check[edit]

Hello WolfmanSF: I see your name around a lot. I'm stuck on something and wonder if you can help. I want to bring the long-tailed vole article up to GA status. I'm trying to sort out the synonyms and subspecies, but there are some discrepancies. If you have a minute, the reference here MSW3 gives some synonyms but no subspecies. However, in the text, they mention this reference as a source, which has both synonyms and subspecies. The lists are different. I think that MSW3 is mislabeled and that those are subspecies and not synonyms. Thank you. --Gaff (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Oddly, none of the species in Myomorpha in MSW3 have subspecies listed, as far as I can see, whereas species from other rodent suborders do. Also, I couldn't find one example of a species listing in MSW3 that gives both synonyms and subspecies (this is not true of genera). So, MSW3 doesn't look like a good source for subspecies info in this case, and maybe the synonyms aren't right either. WolfmanSF (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

MSW3 template not working right[edit]

Hello again, can you look at the MSW3 references on Marsh shrew and Camas pocket gopher? They are now dealinks. With the template, the shrew tries to go here which is a deadlink for me, but this works if I manually find the hyperlink by searching from the index. Thoughts? --Gaff (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I just checked and the links are working. I also noticed a few days ago that the website appeared not to be functioning. Hope the problem is resolved. At some point in the next few years a new MSW edition will come out, and quite possibly all the MSW3 links will need updating then. WolfmanSF (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Aegirocassis has been nominated for Did You Know[edit]