Good to see...
I noticed that you redirected Lacerta maxima to Gallotia goliath a few years ago. There is no mention of Lacerta maxima on that article, and I have been searching online for a connection between the two names, but without success. Do you know of any sources that indicate that these two names are synonyms?
- Gallotia maxima is a junior synonym of Gallotia goliath; all lacertids in the Canary Islands are assigned to Gallotia (see opening sentence in the latter article) although some were initially described as part of Lacerta. In the Reptarium database entries for the species described earlier, G. atlantica, G. stehlini, G. simonyi, G. caesaris and G. galloti (see the bottom of the Gallotia page), Latin names based on Lacerta are given as synonyms. WolfmanSF (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Maca-Meyer et al. (2003) state in their opening sentence, "Lacertid lizards of the endemic genus Gallotia Boulenger, 1916, together with the geckos Tarentola (Carranza et al. 2000, 2002; Nogales et al., 1998), and the skinks Chalcides (Brown & Pestano, 1998), are the only reptile groups to have successfully colonized the Canary Islands..." (doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.2003.00265.x) There are no members of Lacerta in the Canary Islands. WolfmanSF (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Yellow-nosed cotton rat
Hello this is classictwcfan, and I really like your article on the yellow-nosed cotton rat. However I thought that there wasn't any sexual dimorphism among this species. Maybe you could elberate on that. Thank you. (126.96.36.199 (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC))
not total pages
Hi, WolfmanSF. I found Roig's tuco-tuco way back on 07:16, 26 January 2011. I noticed that you used the cite template
|pages= parameter for the total number of pages in the book when that parameter is only intended for specific pages or a specific page range (this is true for journals too but people often cite the total page range in that case). Since the edit is so old, you probably know this now but I thought I'd write a message just in case. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
A drive-by thank you for Bowfin corrections
I reverted one of your changes, but undid the revert because you were absolutely correct. I made a slight modification by adding "morphological characteristics". Atsme☯Consult 19:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- Glad I could contribute to this interesting article in a minor way. WolfmanSF (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with your reversal of my edit. Wikipedia's Manual of Style says: "Plain English works best; avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording". Your edit of 23:22, 30 October 2014 is absolutely choked with impenetrable verbiage that does not enhance understanding. I suspect that what you call "some readers and editors" are in fact the majority of non-experts who will be reading this article. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 07:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that unnecessarily complex verbiage should be avoided. But this verbiage is not unnecessary; it conveys an explanation that cannot be succinctly reduced to plain English without loss of meaning. It is impenetrable only to those who aren't familiar with the terms. Anyone who is interested in understanding it better can proceed by looking up the definitions of the terms and at least gain some further knowledge. Those who are not interested in the detailed explanation can pass over the technical terms while still understanding the thrust of the argument. Plenty of other Wikipedia articles at least in places use technical language that would be meaningless to a layman. (Just think of the articles on quantum mechanics!) WolfmanSF (talk) 07:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)