User talk:WolfmanSF

Archives

Leave a new message

Hi, can you make a comment about my new project Encyclopine.org

hi, Hi, can you make a comment about my new project Encyclopine.org?

IUCN template

Hi. I notice you lobbied for a simplified way of citing the redlist, something I just copy/paste from their page currently. What I want is an auto filled template, which seems to be a rudimentary task and I can't imagine what the difficulty is. Did you get any further than when you enquired in 2015? cygnis insignis 09:21, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did create a Microsoft Word macro that would automatically form the template citation from the web citation listing, but never got around to posting it because it didn't work in conjunction with all browsers and needed a bit more development and testing. The IUCN citation listing has changed since and the macro needs updating, which I will see about getting to when I have time. WolfmanSF (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have had a couple more thoughts, and may see a workaround. Should I let you know if there is some progress with that? cygnis insignis 19:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. WolfmanSF (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FA Review for Ceres

I have nominated Ceres (dwarf planet) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 20:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Minor barnstar
	For all your work on the page Deep-sea gigantism. Aven Az13 (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mastodon

Hello, can you expand the information about the encounter of two mastodon skull fragments in South America? thank you in advance. --181.165.218.33 (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The term "mastodon" is not always used consistently in nonscientific writing. It usually refers to proboscid species in the genus Mammut of the family Mammutidae. However, the scientific names of several gomphotheres (family Gomphotheriidae) sound similar (e.g., Stegomastodon and Notiomastodon). Given that Mammut is not established as living in South America, while the presence of gomphotheres in South America is well known, I think we need to suspect that a nonscientic reference to a "mastodon" in South America may refer to a gomphothere. Thus, I think we should wait for a scientific publication before discussing a possible Mammut discovery in South America. WolfmanSF (talk) 23:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endemism

Hello WolfmanSF,

Just to save us both a lot of work..... I noticed that you are changing "endemism in" to "endemic to". I have used both phrases, more recently "in" on hundred of pages (of Eucalyptus spp. for example). Do you have a good reason for changing? The fate of the world depends on it! (Agree with the other changes you've made lately, like the position of the word "family". Thanks for them.) Gderrin (talk) 03:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of the better usage sources is Oxford's Dictionary. Under the adjective definition "(of a plant or animal) native and restricted to a certain place", they give 21 usage examples (if you click on the "More example sentences" button), including 13 examples of "endemic to" and zero examples of "endemic in". However, under "(of a disease or condition) regularly found among particular people or in a certain area", they also give 21 usage examples, including one example of "endemic to" and 10 examples of "endemic in". So, I conclude that when discussing a plant or animal species, it should be "endemic to", whereas when discussing a disease or condition, "endemic in" is appropriate. I hope I have discharged my heavy responsibility adequately. WolfmanSF (talk) 04:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

World saved! Thanks. Gderrin (talk) 04:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

African elephant

Re: "... edit caption, and remove two media files; I think editors should show restraint in adding their own images to an article"

Dear WolfmanSF

I can see that you are much more experienced in all things Wikipedia. However, this was really good faith editing, not self promotion. I have gone through the trouble of cutting the video down to a short piece, to only show the family hierarchy complete with sound, then convert it online into ogg, then upload and tag it on commons. Not everyone can travel to Africa to see elephant behavior in the wild. And the sound does not carry well with still photography.

Best, Axel Tschentscher (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my suggestion: go through the other available videos, and if you honestly think after that yours is the most suitable, I won't interfere further. What drew my attention was that four of your media files were added in a short interval. Of those, the one of the trunk hairs seems most unique and useful. I think it tends to be harder for most of us to be objective about our own work. In the case of your brief video, to my thinking it doesn't tell an obvious story in terms of why one elephant chose another individual to shove. WolfmanSF (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I went through all of those videos, found two actually relating to information and put one up as a replacement for the Japan zoo video. Also: removed one of my pictures. --Axel Tschentscher (talk) 01:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hi sir , nice collection ,this is a medico from south india — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4070:2018:CD22:234:46B6:9DF6:212E (talk) 04:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, WolfmanSF (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

	Nice to meet you ~
	~ Thanks for your edits ~ ~mitch~ (talk) 01:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

Hi, it's the destination, that is ambiguous. It would be like creating an article (not a disambiguous) for giant earthworms, giant frogs or giant lizards. None of those terms would be taxonomically correct, rather a mixing up information with a colloquial or familiar name. Your thoughts would be welcome on Talk:Giant_tortoise#Not_a_taxonomically_correct_article. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 23:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sun Creator:It's about a single distinct subject that in this case comprises 2 extant non-sister taxa rather than one taxon. We are not bound to write biology articles only about unique taxa. Consider army ant, amphibious fish, marine mammal and flightless bird among many other examples. WolfmanSF (talk) 00:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts. The taxonbox in this case has twenty-three different taxon, plus many others mentioned in the article. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 00:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Among extant species, we're basically talking about two clades, Galápagos members of Chelonoidis and the genus Aldabrachelys. WolfmanSF (talk) 04:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Marine Mammalogy updates to articles (re: Phocoena sinus edits)

Hello! I am a marine ecologist and a member of the Society for Marine Mammalogy, and I'm working on a team of curators on the Education Committee to update and reformat information on all marine mammal Wikipedia pages so that they have a consistent style and reflect the most current information. This committee is being run by a marine mammalogist at NOAA, and in addition to that, each drafted Wikipedia page is reviewed by an expert on the species. I completed a full literature review on the vaquita, wrote this article fitting a uniform format for all marine mammal pages (although many are still in progress), had the article independently fact-checked by a vaquita researcher, and then uploaded the edits. I apologize for making all of the edits at once, but it is accurate and up-to-date. Additional information cited by peer-reviewed sources is welcomed! The goal is to have all marine mammal pages with updated, properly cited information under the same headings.KimNiels (talk) 05:22, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]