This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

October 2009

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from top

If there is anything you want to tell me, please put it here Innotata 21:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Anything: and please start a new section Innotata 20:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, Innotata! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Smartse (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Feel free to message me if you have any questions regarding editing. Smartse (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

Konrad Lorenz

Hi, and thanks for your message. The Lorenz pic showing him with a swastika on his lapel can still be found here, on a page which is obviously part of one of the many Wikipedia mirrors. I don't know anything about the origin of the geese pics, but there are many, from many different decades. However, the main problem seems to be that they cannot be used in Wikipedia because they are not free. Rules are much stricter these days than they used to be back in 04. But maybe you'll be able to find such a free image.

Best wishes, <K F> 23:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'll be able to find any. After searching Wikipedia, I found a non-free image on Wikipedia which apparently is just barely OK to use, and some pictures of Lorenz as a POW in Russia on Wikimedia Commons. I'm not the person to look for images, really. innotata (Talk | Contribs) 13:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flamingo

I'm not sure if you were only trying to re-write the relations section of the flamingo article; I've restored the entire article and replaced only that section with your addition as it appears your edit deleted the entire thing. If this was an incorrect guess, please feel free to revert me. Kuru ^talk 20:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't know what happened. I deleted the whole thing, by accident?! innotata (Talk | Contribs) 20:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Project Coordination

To take on the position of a Project Coordinator is a BIG undertaking one that should not be taken lightly, it is not a simple task as there is no quick fix solutions, however it is a rewarding and gratifiying job. In basic terms you maintain and coordinate the Project. Eg. Techinical Maintanance (this will take up around 60% of your time), like tag fixes and editing the Project Mainspace to ensure Members are able to work more on improving articles then worrying about the project itself and rating articles (to give you an idea of how much work this is, in the past month i have rated around 500 articles). As a coordinator it is your job to ensure everything is up to date and working well. Around 20% of your time is directing other members to areas that need the most help or to assist other members with help. and finaly around 20% of your time is spent actually editing articles (and i mean editing the article itself not talk pages or rating stuff). WikiProject Mammals is a great place to learn the ropes however i would encourage you not become the project coordinator just yet as it is a giant project. Maybe start off joing WikiProject Animals and see how Intelligentsium and Myself coordinate things then start of with something small like WikiProject Monotremes and Marsupials WP:MaM that project is currently inactive and as such needs to be reactivated. I would be happy to help you in doing this and restarting the project if you want?, let me know. Also to get a scale of what myself an Intelligentsium coordinate look Here I hope i havnt scared you off. Regards Zoo Pro 03:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grading/Quality/Rating

I have created a subpage for you to use when grading the quality of animal related articles. User:Innotata/Grading Scheme. It will help you better understand the system we use. Cheers and Happy rating Zoo Pro 04:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry i assumed that becuase you had joined wikiProject Mammals that you may have been interested in becoming a Coordinator (im currently acting in that position however i dont want to do it) So maybe sometime down the track you will feel confident enough to take on that role. In regards to assessing the importance of a project its very difficult indeed, I like the tried and true method that, if the subject is extremely notable Eg Lion that gets a high priority, were as a Sand Cat is more mid class and Captive white tigers is a low priority, its a very subjective rating one that can change frequently or not at all. All we can do is try our best and that generaly works well. Good Luck. Zoo Pro 00:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note on Stechlin cisco some articles will never achieve above a B this im afraid may be one of them, though in all credit to you, it has gone from a "stub" to a C possibly B in a short period of time, Im also not suprised by the lack of a C rating in the wikiproject fish, some dont have it, that is also part of the coordinators job to bring a project inline with the standard. We win some we lose some. Zoo Pro 00:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found WikiProject Fishes C Class Articles Category:C-Class_Fishes_articles, i have also updated the Project page to reflect this. Zoo Pro 00:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, though the info you've given me on importance is not quite sufficient for assessing the importance of rodent articles. Here's my decision on involvement on wiki projects: I'm not going to get into coordination–at least for a while–, but I will be doing assessments often. I am not daunted by the prospect of coordination, but I have other, better things to do here at present. As for Stechlin cisco, perhaps it is worth knowing that I started this account after I found this species had no article. For this reason, it is important to me. I still hope to improve it a good deal, and repeat this with a good many more articles on obscure animals. What do you think of the thingy at WP:BIRD copied off of WP:INDIA, though? It really sticks out on a mostly well-done, but uncoordinated WikiProject. innotata (Talk | Contribs) 00:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subdivison in taxobox

Hello Innotata, Thanks for your edits around animal pages. Have you considered joining WP:Rodents? I've noticed that in the process of your contributions, you have removed the contents of the "subdivision" category in taxoboxes and have replaced it with "see text" (Cricetulus is an example). Is there a reason for this? The goal of a taxobox is quick navigation to higher and lower taxonomic ranks. Click on an organism article and you should be able to look at the taxobox and quickly jump to higher or lower taxonomic levels. The taxonomy section of the text is meant to show a list of species in a more detailed manner (e.g. common names, subgenera, species-groups, unranked clades, etc. for a list of species). I have always seen the "see text" option as a placeholder when an editor decides to come back to the section or as warranted in those rare cases where the list would be too long and there's no appropriate intermediate category (such as subgenera). Anyway, other editors may have a different opinion on the topic and I want to make sure this doesn't come off as negative - I've seen you make a lot of good edits to pages on my watch list. --Aranae (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just following the practice at WikiProject Birds. I personally prefer this for a lot of pages. innotata (Talk | Contribs) 19:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

House Sparrow

Hi Innotata: Sure, that might be fun. It's certainly a well-known and widespread species, thanks to all those homesick colonials. ;) Fire away with the questions! MeegsC | Talk 13:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cepola macrophthalma and Mithaecus

OK, I'm working on adding references to the article right now. FYI, according to [1], it wasn't a Victorian Englishman who invented "Cepola rubescens", but Linnaeus himself in 1764. But you're quite right that the name is now considered an invalid synonym of C. macrophthalma. Andrew Dalby 21:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworked Mithaecus: is it fit for purpose now? Let me know if you need more! Andrew Dalby 21:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect iw

Thanks for warning me about the incorrect interwiki with Estirabot. It seems that the problem is that someone put a wrong interwiki in the catalan article. I fixed it so that any bot will change it over again. If you see any other incorrect interwiki, please tell me.

Thank you! --Meldor (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Reptiles

No system wide member message. The list is purged every 12 months (though granted this was long over due), it is assumed that an active member would frequently attend the mainspace therefore noticing the lists purged, Also all participants should have project page on thier watch list and would be aware of the purge. I believe this group has retrackted into an inactive group much like most of the animal projects, this is why myself and a number of other contribs are working very very hard to bring the all back. Zoo Pro 21:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mammal Portal

The Mammals Portal is under construction by User:Seduisant who is the coordinator for that portal and WikiProject Mammals, it would be best if you leave the tags on the portals or seek advice from those who placed them there. Zoo Pro 00:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It said "please remove this template if this page has not been edited for several days". I believe ten to be considerably more than several! innotata (Talk | Contribs) 00:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sorry its just that seduisant has been busy and has yet to edit it. In regards to that wikiproject im looking into it, doesnt seem like something we need or want on wikipedia. Zoo Pro 02:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Cepola macrophthalma

On November 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cepola macrophthalma, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page _{(here's how)} and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

MuZemike 07:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

??

Not sure what you mean by "messed up". Can you clarify please? MeegsC | Talk 19:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It linked to nowhere. innotata (Talk | Contribs) 19:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linked to nowhere? Sorry, still don't understand. On my computer (Mac with Safari), if I click on a Harvard citation, it drops down to the references. If I click on that, it drops to the "works cited" section. Are you expecting it to do something else? (I used reference #5 as a "test case".) MeegsC | Talk 21:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I mean. I have Mac with Firefox. Why? innotata (Talk | Contribs) 22:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My inline citations seem to be working. Are you saying that the Harvard citation should be doing something other than what I described above? Or that your inline citations aren't doing what I described mine doing? One thing I have found is that you have to list the "works cited" in citation format rather than cite book, cite journal, etc., despite what it says at WP:CITET. It's one of the reasons why I'd started removing Harvard citations from most of the articles I work on, because I don't think the citation format looks as clean. MeegsC | Talk 00:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to making cits for my sources. The citation template? That's the way to do it? With The sparrows it will look confusing, with the location. innotata (Talk | Contribs) 17:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009

Tree Sparrow

I'm a bit concerned about the changes you have made to the referencing for this. As a featured article, it is a requirement that the referencing style is consistent. It doesn't matter if you use cite or citation style, but you can't have both. Are you intending to convert all the refs to citation? If so, that's fine, if not I think we will have to roll back to all cite style. I don't want to find this article at WP:FAR simply because the referencing styles have become mixed. Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I know it is not ideal to change so much at a featured article, but I decided to WP:BOLDly match it to the other sparrow articles. I'm only using citation for those that have inline-Harvard citations, since I haven't been able to make this work with cite x. If I can find out how to fix this I'll convert it back to cite x, which I otherwise prefer. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to change refs from Clements, it's a good secondary source which cannot be challenged on RS, so to change it is unnecessary work. With regard to spelling etc, if you have the Firefox British English dictionary installed, that will help avoid mixing AE/BE as well as picking up more obvious typos - it underlined "british" while I was typing this because I missed the capital. I'd leave a thorough grammar/prose check to be part of the polishing before GA/FA Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is RS? An important point is that Summers-Smith includes a good deal more information, including that on which subspecies were introduced where. It is certainly the original source for Clement. What do you think of citing Clement and Summers-Smith at the top and Summers-Smith for each subspecies? I think I've found a way to use cite x templates with inline/Harvard cits. If it works I'll let you know. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 15:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Source The ref only needs to support what is written in the article, so unless the info in Summers-Smith but not Clements, either will do. Both are unimpeachable as RS - they are secondary sources, always preferable to primary if possible. I'm still concerned about mixing templates in the same article, which is a big no-no for an FA Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit tied up with the house martin planned FT, but I'll help out with the sparrows when I can. It should be possible to get most of the Passer articles to GA, and hence aim for Good Topic. To get FT, half the articles need to be FAs. That will be massive amount of work - I don't know if you monitor the bearpit that is WP:FAC, but it's worth looking if you don't Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. As for the Tree Sparrow refs, what should I do? I can't find an simple way to use cite x templates and inline-Harvard cits (the complicated way can be admired at inner German border). —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 16:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't monitor FAC, but I've looked at a bunch of FA reviews already (Cyclura nubila, Lundomys, for example). Nothing particularly new, and very few FAs really impress me (Lundomys and inner German border are the only ones). —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 16:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've done it: I've found how you use Harvard and cite x templates!! You add the parameter ref=harv ! —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 16:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Kammerer translation

Hello, I found your request on my talk page for translating the German version of this article. I have to say that I'm tempted to work on this, but it's going to take some time. The German article is rather huge but it of course it can be done. I'm going to work on it in my user space and then I'll put up the final version into the article name space, so others can work on the English text in the meantime.

I'll let you know when there's a first draft version to be seen, ok? Cheers, De728631 (talk) 19:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'd rather add the current text first, then move to the article space. Or maybe I could add the citations to the text now. I'll certainly want to make an arrangement of the text entirely different from that in place, or that at the German Wikipedia. I'll contact you with the details. Thanks, —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

permalink to current version 22:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Sparrow papers

With regards to the sparrow papers you requested - email me the full title, date and first author and I'll see if I can get them on my university system. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any further info on the papers: that is what I need, as I can access almost any scientific journal. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 22:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also: as I've noted at the bird talk page, I've added a bit to Limestone Leaf-warbler, but, well, see here: Wikipedia_talk:BIRD#In_time_for_Christmas —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 00:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you google delichon predators beetle you should see a Bratislava pdf listed which says 1400 beetle sp have been recorded in House sparrow nests Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see this, but what does it have to do with the papers on rufous sparrow taxonomy? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 15:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking at the Bratislava paper, and this is interesting. I probably will not do much with it for a while, since there are loads of other papers to read, such as Kate Vincent's PhD thesis, which has a lot of info on the diet of House Sparrow nestlings; and Till Töpfer's paper on the Italian Sparrow. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I was just mucking around with the participants list on WikiProject Mammals and seen your name all the way down the bottom your name should be at the top as a coordinator i think. Zoo Pro 22:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been that active there over the past bit, because of my grand schemes for sparrows, finches, and waterfowl. I prefer alphabetical orders for WikiProjects myself, but I am available to answer any questions from new users or point out who can answer them, so go ahead and put my name near the head. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 15:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I am I right that rodent talk pages should normally only be tagged with {{Rodent}}, unless they're really important (House Mouse, Rodent), then {{MaTalk}}, too? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 16:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC) (Ucucha's answered this one: only rodent tags). —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah i agree with Ucucha. Zoo Pro 00:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Chestnut Sparrow

On December 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chestnut Sparrow, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cirt (talk) 11:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cetaceans

Thank you, innotata. I was actually promoted to coordinator of WikiProject Cetaceans!! Thank you for introducing me to it. Warm regards, Belugaboy535136 (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sparrow

I think it's a matter of choice whether you call sparrow type noises a song or not. With the Tawny Owl FA I put senses under Description. Some editors might have them as subsections under Description, but I like to keep headings to a minimum, I don't like article with one-paragraph subheadings. Merry Christmas Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I'll avoid references to sparrow songs for clarity—see House Sparrow#Voice. From this section you can tell I take a slightly different approach to subheadings, though I think a good many articles have too many of them: Pudu, for instance. As for senses, I won't get to that for a bit. I've only just started working on the feeding section. Here's an interesting tidbit: in 2006, Anderson reported that he knew of no studies whatsoever of House Sparrow olfaction. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised, I've found nothing on any of the birds I've done in detail Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know of studies of several waterfowl species, corvids, parulids, and raptors. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mammal

Yes i would think it a great idea to mention using the Rodent temp instead of tagging it as Mammals, Myself and Ucucha some months ago did infact swap alot of the mammals temps for rodent temps on the rodent talk pages. Means alot less work for the mammals team. I was infact thinking that next year wikiproject animals propose that we tag the talk page with only the Projects that will actually have anything to do with the article eg.

Rats = WikiProject Rodents
Lion = WikiProject Mammals
Dog = WikiProject Dogs
Cat = WikiProject Cats
Ect..Ect...

I really think only one related project needs to look after the article, if u start adding more it gets confusing not to mention it clutters up the talk page. I dont edit any rodent articles for this reason as that project has it well and truly under control. So in answer to your question yes i think it would be appropriate to request that the rodent template be used instead of the mammals template on rodent related articles. Cheers Zoo Pro 02:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know how many pages need to be retagged. House Mouse was one! —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AAR Page importance

per the re-assesment of Importance.

Bog turtle - yes i think now its a GA it no longer needs a Top priority status i agree with the delisting to Low.
Amphisbaenia i would have considered it a Top importance article as it is sub order of Squamata. The other subs have Top rating.
Caecilian i think would be High but i am happy with the Top rating, I would like to see in the near future it reach GA and given the content already it may achieve it within a few months of hard work.

I have given Amphisbaenia a Start class rating bringing it up from a stub.

Further to WikiProject Mammals i will help de-list the mammals tag from the Rodent articles when i can. Hope this helps Cheers Zoo Pro 04:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how caecilian could have any importance but top, being one of the three amphibian groups. (I've just reassessed Salamander as top as well.) (Especially if amphisbaenian, only one group of lizards and not so prominent as snakes monitors, or iguanids etc., deserves top.) —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 16:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you are correct in the top listing to ceacilian, i seemed to have been looking at the wrong order, one of those momentary lapses in judgment. Zoo Pro 22:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chestnut sparrow

How much work does Chestnut Sparrow need to get to GA? It's not far off, but the lead is maybe a bit thin. Illustrations are good but not mandatory - doesn't have to be of the species, could have a habitat pic if all else fails. Map would be good, again not essential.
Where do I put things about House Sparrow flocking, and juvenile behaviour? I'd be inclined to have Feeding section, which could include flocking, and put juvenile behaviour either in breeding or survival'
Is the source you refer to on Tree Sparrow ssp. Clements, not "Clement 1993", as it used to state? This made me think it was Finches and Sparrows, the only source in the works cited. it was Finches and Sparrows
How do you think I should refer to the IUCN Red List and its categories? (I prefer "The House Sparrow is assessed as Least Concern on the IUCN Red List.", but I've seen lots of variations.) Your call, that looks OK though

If you like, I'll do a ce before you post at GAN Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chestnut Sparrow

I've had run through, and made these changes. I've included technical fixes (hyphens to n dashes in page ranges, dab and redirect fixes), please check Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checked. Thanks for fixing these things: ah, dab and redirect fixes: that's something I can do. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 16:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Spider Monkey

Ok, this is weird. The legal English name for the monkey is "Black Spider Monkey." Yet, some cinnamonhead went and made up a fake name. Can you please clarify this? Warm regards, Belugaboy535136 (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please clarify this? What is a legal name? Wikipedia uses names from the book Mammal Species of the World, 3rd. ed. (or "MSW3"), the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, and such sources. A scientific name should always be given in a Wikipedia article. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 16:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion, the IUCN gives the species the name "black spider monkey," and it also goes by what Encyclopedia Britticana says, thus, the name red-faced spider monkey should be dropped and the page renamed "black spider monkey." I didn't even know that there was the name "red-faced spider monkey." So you know, my uncle works for IUCN, that's how I got the data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belugaboy535136 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we frequently use MSW3 names preferentially. I don't know what the case is here, but I'll look into it. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The case here is a split. The Black Spider Monkey has been split into the species Red-faced Spider Monkey and Peruvian Spider Monkey (each has a bunch of other names). You wrote an article, which I merged, on the Red-faced. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No,I wrote about the species in general. No specification was given, as you see, only one lives in North America for red-faced and Peruvian, Esmerelda, and also, I've seen photos of both species (thanks, IUCN!) and I've read descriptions straight from the IUCN (again, thanks guys at IUCN!) and I noticed no difference. I think the two should be merged, renamed, and edited to fit the "black spider monkey" criteria. Regards, Belugaboy535136 (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to be seeing the same IUCN Red List as me. The split is old, and recognised by the IUCN. "The Peruvian was split off" would be a better description, as it is a little known mountain species. We won't just merge the species because they look the same: only if some authority does so or perhaps if the split is proposed in a journal. I don't really know much about the taxonomy of spider monkeys, so I'll have to refer you to somebody from Wikipedia:WikiProject Primates. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 15:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Draft

Here is a rough sketch of the male Passer simplex saharae. I am afraid it may be missing some important nuances that I am unaware of. Let me know about what changes it needs to make it useful. Have a good holiday. Shyamal (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure this is supposed to be an image of the African Desert Sparrow – saharae – and not the Asian Desert Sparrow I told you about? (Ah no, wait, I've pulled up the paper I suggested.) I suppose it looks like saharae (this was the ssp out of three I least expected fom you), the main improvements needed probably being to the exact tones used. The legs look too small, and the tones at the top of the head in particular need improvement. The curve on the back seems slightly exaggerated, but I can't find much more. The colors again, are in need of a little improvement (or is it just my computer? probably not, since my computer screen is brighter, and the pic looks too dark). —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 16:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The general look this tries to portray looks right, if Desert Sparrows really do look like small pale House Sparrows. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will need more time to look over. Actually I am finding the diagnostic differences between zarudnyi and saharae hard to see in the paper. Colours are always a problem due to calibration. Shyamal (talk) 01:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you make an image of all three subspecies together, with a crop of one (I believe saharae would be best) for the taxobox? Then the current photo could be used for the distribution and habitat section. Some more species you may want to look into later:

For this species, this paper by Kirwan (not available online) would be useful: "Studies of Socotran birds III: Morphological and mensural evidence for a ‘new’ species in the Rufous Sparrow Passer motitensis complex endemic to the island of Abd 'Al-Kuri, with the validation of Passer insularis Sclater & Hartlaub, 1881". Bull. B.O.C. 128, 83-93.

Might you also be interested in these and other species, for which it would be almost impossible to get free images of? By the way, the Latin name of the pochard is the source of my username. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will help you as much as possible but do forgive me for not being timely on these things. It needs a "flow state" and there are too many things competing for time. Do mail me or point out any source images that I should look at. Have a great holiday. Shyamal (talk) 02:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just pointing out areas you may be interested in later. Images of animals for which photos are difficult to find are an area I strongly recommend to you. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this is illustrative enough. Shyamal (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.