User talk:Snowmanradio/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Happy Snowmanradio's Day!

Featured article star.svg

User:Snowmanradio has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Snowmanradio's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Snowmanradio!

02:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. RlevseTalk 02:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

FP judge?

Hi, I wonder whether you'd be prepared to judge the new FPs for next week at The Signpost's "F and A" page. It would just require up to about 140 words nominating your choice and giving your technical/subjective reasons for it. Here's an example. Please let me know if you want to do it, I'll link you to the draft when it's done, Saturday. Tony (talk) 04:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It depends on the pictures and if I can choose just one. When you say next week, I presume that the pictures to choose from will be made up to FP next week and not available now. I think I could choose one for the pictures made up to FP during the week preceding today, but I presume that is the wrong set of photographs. Snowman (talk) 10:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't very clear about the timing, was I. And usually I arrange things with a bit more notice, but WP has been so busy. The Signpost is published Mondays UTC. We take the new FPs from the week up to the previous Friday (end, midnight); in this case, it would be Saturday 11 December to Friday 17 (today). But it gets easier; I need to make up the list for the page, so you can conveniently click on the nom pages. I'll send you a link when it's done, probably within 24 hours. I saw your name active at FPC a while ago; we choose a different reviewer/nominator each week. Tony (talk) 10:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
OK. Snowman (talk) 11:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Snowman, ready for you now, here, down the bottom. Looks like a good field. Thanks. Tony (talk) 11:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Provisional copy: "There is a very wide range of new Featured Pictures this week including several bird photographs. It was very difficult to select one; however, my favourite is the Wood Swallow about to feed chicks in a nest. I wondered how long the photographer patiently watched the nest and how he managed to focus the moment on the sensor of his digital camera. I think that the photograph from space of the Sarychev Volcano erupting, the photo-stitched interior of Galeries Lafayette store, the map of Florida, and the pit stop at Darlington are amazingly good technical images, and all these images had good image descriptions explaining the who, when, where, and what of the photograph.".

Lovely, thank you SMR! Noodle snacks must be a master of timing. Tony (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. If there are any typos or issues, please let me know. I was not sure about naming any photographers in the report thinking that it would be best to ask them first. Snowman (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry, merry

Bzuk (talk) 20:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Douglas Bader/GA1

Douglas Bader is being reviewed for GA listing. It has been put on hold for an initial 14 days to allow issues such as prose, inline citing and detailed coverage to be addressed. SilkTork *YES! 16:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


no need for a link to photobucket to be duplicated. Agreed. My apologies, I didn't spot the duplicate. Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy, happy

Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours! (from warm Cuba) Bzuk (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

David Alderton - urgent

Hi - you speedily deleted David Alderton last April as db-g11 and one week later your deletion was undone by the author himself. I have now applied db-11 myself but think the article should be salted or he will simply undo your revision again. MarkDask 07:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that you have sent a message to the wrong person. I have contributed to the article, and I think that it is good and should be kept. Snowman (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I noted in the history that on the 4 April 2010 your edit summary on the page included the words "(looks like copy vio from authors website, so deleted)". Oops - I misread those words, I thought you meant you had proposed the article for deletion, and it didn't help that on the 11th April David Alderton undid that revision. I will remove the Hangon template and work on the article. MarkDask 11:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I see, but I just deleted the copy vio. Snowman (talk) 11:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Okay snowman but the following text, the last paragraph of of this article, appears verbatim both in the article and in the "About David" section of his homepage, - "David has recently established this website as a means of providing information for those interested in pets, in an accessible magazine-type format. His aim is to cater both for the specialist enthusiast as well as the general pet-owner, creating a pet care community for all. " - Is this not a copyright vio? - I have added 3 refs and made other constructive edits but could you deal with the last para please cos I don't have the experience.MarkDask 14:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I deleted some more copy vio. Snowman (talk) 14:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Jeez you must one of the sharpest editors on here - kudos.MarkDask 14:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I just happen to be on line when you left the messages. Snowman (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th


If you are the same Snowmanradio as on Commons, please see your talkpage there for a message from me and on Commons:COM:AN as well. If you are not the same person, please kindly disgard this message. Thanks. - NeutralhomerTalk • 11:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


Wikipedia Autopatrolled.svg

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

  • This permission does not give you any special status or authority
  • Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
  • You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
  • If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 21:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Snowman (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Peter John Morris

Thanks for creating Peter Morris (surgeon). I created the redirect Peter John Morris, which links from Lister Medal and List of Fellows of the Royal Society M,N,O. I'll add the Lister Medal information when I get a chance, but wanted to leave you this note as that is one less redlink for me to create! (I'm planning to get to the others on that list over the next few weeks.) Do you mind if I ask how you came across him and decided to create the article? Carcharoth (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

He was on the BBC radio 4 a few years ago. Snowman (talk) 11:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Stork image

Snowman I've listed what I tentatively think are the four best images we have for the taxobox here at Talk:White_Stork#Taxobox_image, so decide which one you think is best - and if you find a better one, link it there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

It is a difficult choice. Snowman (talk) 10:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Long-tailed Finch

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

White Stork - Taxonomy and Evolution

Hi Snowman...I made some comments about the taxonomy and evolution in the review page of the White Stork and noticed that you had made a few changes to this section. I was wondering if you could take a look at what I had to say about the genetic study and fix the mistakes? It states in the article that "The close evolutionary relationship between the White Stork and the Maguari Stork suggested by behavioural similarities was confirmed through analysis of mitochondrial cytochrome b gene sequences." - this is actually false. You're doing a great job at fixing the other material - thought I would pull your attention to the comments I made in the review page on this.Thompsma (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Well spotted. Some of these errors were in the wiki article before I copy-edited this section. Snowman (talk) 18:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program

Hi Snowman! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If that sounds like you and you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE.

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


Congratulations Snowmanradio, your image Image:Haliaeetus leucocephalus -Skagit valley-8-2c.jpg was the Random Picture of the Day! It looked like this: {{User:Presidentman/potd/{{date}} }}. - Talk to you later, Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 00:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Erna Lazarus

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Erna Lazarus has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article has had no sources inserted since it was tagged in 2007. That's long enough. It should be rescued or deleted. If rescued, the filmography should be turned into a "Selected filmography" and cut down to six notable films, per guidelines

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. David in DC (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Erna Lazarus

I've nominated this article for deletion, after the PROD notice was lifted. The article has been tagged for no having no sources on the article's page since 2007. WP:DEADLINE does not extend into infinity. The only source the editor who deleted the prior prod notice could find was evidently not sufficient to establish notability. assuming good faith, if it we're, the editor would have put it into the article, instead of onto the talk page. I agree. It's not enough to pass WP:GNG, let alone WP:BIO. I can find no better. If (A) the tag has been there since 2007 and (B) the editor who opposes Prod can find no source that establishes notability, and (C) I can find none either, WP:DUCK. David in DC (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


You made the following edit: "It is not clear to everyone who Ed is?" that you later reverted. I myself have no idea. Is it important for me to know? --Garrondo (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Replied over there. Snowman (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Parkinson's disease

As the article has been promoted I will address your pending comments at talk page. For the moment I have copied all pending comments there.--Garrondo (talk) 11:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I plan to do attend to the lead pipe rigidity, double vision, and find ref for "uncommon under 40 yrs", as I could probably look them up somewhere reasonably easily. I would be grateful if you could look at the pesticides paragraphs. Might take a while to get a response for the author of the image of the brain electrodes, so I might try to explain in the image from what is shown. Snowman (talk) 12:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I have already found a ref for double vision and I will add it soon. My bet is that per reasons I gave you at FAC it will be more than a while regarding image author... so your description would be great. Regarding uncommon under 40 I still feel that is covered with existing ref but another ref of course will not harm.--Garrondo (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

White Stork

I have asked Sasata who has pointed out some stuff to fix and i am working my way through it. I will nominate it at FAC but alot of folks are also responsible. Do you want to be listed as a co-nominator? You've done alot of work on it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for asking me. The article has turned out well. I do not want to be a co-nominator, because I do not want to spend too much time there. I expect I will have a look at it from time to time. Snowman (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
okay. I will wait until we do another parrot article, which I suspect you'll want to help out on. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Fine. Snowman (talk) 10:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Lovebirds

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Lovebirds has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete it if needs be. Snowman (talk) 11:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


Snow, I have never really done editing. I have commented in the past providing information for those redacting articles (always bird-related). A couple of my friends, however, did do some editing and were kind enough to upload a lot of their own photos, and they were getting flak for their perhaps unpolished efforts at editing. I commented then about not being happy that they were being treated rather shabbily, and thereafter decided simply to stay away from the wiki entirely. This was about a year and a half to two years ago. I decided to redact some of the ID's again through the wiki because I was getting inquiries about my ID's through flickr. I have no intention of causing a ruckus about something this far in the past, however, I found some things offputting before, and I don't intend to do anything more now through the wiki other than provide ID information, nor do I wish to further deepen this discussion which is a dead letter to me by now. I don't need the aggravation, and if with what little free time that I do have to dedicate to vetting bird species I can further the overall enthusiasm of people that might want to save them and habitat, then that is quite sufficient.Steve Pryor (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

There are many ways of contributing to the wiki. Snowman (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Song Thrush

In terms of removal, the Gould and Naumann are of only historical interest, the English and Lituanian subspecies don't add much since all forms similar. If you want another, the eating earthworm image only shows what you would expect Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

NZ is nominate (distribution para 2, ref 13) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
We normally just show natural distributions on the map, with an appropriate caption, and only mention introductions in the text. Alternatively, as with common Blackbird, the map includes the introduced range (not my preference). If the introduced range isn't shown, I wouldn't mention it in the caption, but I don't feel strongly about it, so it's up to you Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Moot point. Snowman (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I have started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds#Consistency_with_introduced_ranges_on_maps. Snowman (talk) 11:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Errol Fuller for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Errol Fuller is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Errol Fuller until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. bender235 (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on April 11, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 11, 2011. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 06:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Flying High Bird Sanctuary

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Flying High Bird Sanctuary requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. OlYellerTalktome 05:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to deal with some of the zoo articles. There is inherently little information about them in books (unless we are talking about the Bronx Zoo, London Zoo, or other long-standing organization) but they are part of the overall picture of zoos in the world. A lot of information for zoos tends to come from their own Web sites (despite what the official policy states, I would argue that the zoo knows better than anyone else how many animals it has and of what species) and tourist publications, and a lot of the latter is duplicated across multiple sites. I've been working on trying to get zoo articles at least up to start-class (which to me means it at least has to have some refs), but there are still some 320 stubs on my list (meaning NO refs, and less than four paragraphs). I'm not sure why this one was singled out, as there are quite a few more that are in much worse shape. I'm only managing to get one or two articles up-rated per week, which makes this seem pretty hopeless. Also, this article has been around for over a year -- why only now? Donlammers (talk) 10:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Cattle Egret

It doesn't make sense as written, should be exothermic. It's not a ref I have access to, so I've just excised that phrase since it's non-essential and not usually in species' articles anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Fine, that has fixed it. Reducing jargon this small print line probably should say something like "can keep warm in the nest without warmth from a parent", but I have not looked it up in a reliable source. Snowman (talk) 09:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

If I heard someone say that all snow which is suitable for the making of snowmen (aka: snowman-snow) that falls on your property belongs to you, I could respond thusly:

"Snowman's snowman-snow's no man's snowman snow; man!"

Instead of "Such snow that belongs to him in fact belongs to no man! Geez!"

That's five! Can't possibly be beat!


Chrisrus (talk) 03:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Pteroglossus azara

Hi Snow, I still haven't figured out how to make small corrections on the images.

Just a heads-up. The word taxa is the plural of the singular taxon.Steve Pryor (talk) 06:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I presume that you are asking about correcting text descriptions of images rather than editing the images (to remove watermarks and borders and so on). When you view an image on the wiki it has usually been uploaded to commons, so you can not edit them on the wiki, but you can edit on commons. There are several ways of getting on Commons, and I would recommend that you signed in there to do the editing. When viewed on en wiki the images have:
"This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Information from its description page there is shown below."
This is written in a box on the actual view on en wiki, and you will see that there is wikilink to the image on commons. Click on this link and you will be viewing the image from Commons and you can log in Commons and edit it. The wiki link example is one I uploaded from Flickr of a white-nosed coati in Costa Rica. You can also clink on the signpost to commons at the bottom of some wiki pages - the mark up code for a signpost is; {{Commons category|Binomial name}}. You will know when you are on common from the logo at the top left hand corner of the page. The en wiki has a sphere with letters in different alphabets in jigsaw pieces, and the Commons has a schematic indicating centralization. Snowman (talk) 08:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

House Martin

I think it's a near certainty that it's hunting. Although there are other reasons for flying (mud gathering etc), given the habitat it's much more likely that it's feeding low over water. Although they feed at medium height in fine weather, like other swallows they come down to water when its cool, such as early morning. I have added an Iceland ref and tweaked the caption a bit. also delinked countries and continents in line with current FA practice Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

No, that's fine, I'm happy to go with your image selections Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


What's the difference in commons cat and commons category? They go to the same page and neither shows as a redirect so it seems to not matter. As for Cas and Black Bishop credit he said he'd add more. If he doesn't we can remove him. As for giving credit for history merge for AA, I don't see that as edits to the article so I'd vote no on that one. BarkingMoon (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The template is Template:Commons category, so it is more natural to link directly than through a redirect, and I think it is less work for the servers. Snowman (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. Commons must be different that en wiki as commonscat doesn't have a redirect line at the top of the page when you use it, such as when you use WP:BIRD. BarkingMoon (talk) 14:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Template:Commonscat is a redirect. Snowman (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah, but it still doesn't display when you use it. I agree, we should use the non redirect version. BarkingMoon (talk) 14:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
It does not matter that much. I would not change it if it was the only thing on a page that needed changing, but I sometimes change it with other edits on the page. Snowman (talk) 14:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Phil. Eagle

Answers to the some of the questions you raised on WP:BIRD since they to some extent are based on unpublished info (i.e., under no circumstances does the info belong in any wiki article): Yes, the range has contracted, and, at least in theory, there could be geographical differences, but to my knowledge this is not supported by any published info; it is speculative. In Phil. endemics, a large percentage of the species with populations on both Luzon (the larger northern island) and Mindanao (the larger southern island) have different subspecies on these islands, and if only looking at forest based Phil. endemics, it is the vast majority where the two island populations are different subspecies. The three specimens you asked about: One male came from W. Mindanao and the other from SE Mindanao. The very large that is of unknown sex according to the published source is actually a female based on the label that is attached to the specimen, which is entirely unsurprising based on the presumed sexual dimorphism in the species, but it is not clear where it was captured before it arrived in Brookfield Zoo. Back then (~50 years ago), the animal trade was (even) less controlled than it is today, and they often didn't bother to note exactly where an animal was captured. Additionally, valuable animals often passed through a whole range of traders before they arrived at their final destination, which further blurred the picture. The three are all complete skins that are not on display, but they can be measured again if access is requested (you'll need a better argument than "I'd like to measure it for wikipedia" for the curator to allow access to such valued specimens, however). FMNH also has a chick preserved in alcohol, a complete skeleton of an adult, and a partial skeleton of an adult. The complete is not linked to any of the skins, but the partial is from the SE Mindanao male where the skin also is preserved.
A question about photo copyrights on commons that you may be able to answer: How are the rules on deleting photos from people where the majority of their photos have been shown to be copyright violations? The reason I'm asking is that this Phil. Eagle photo originates from the same flickr account as the two deleted earlier due to copyright violations. This flickr user only has three photos in total on his account, and we already know two are copyright violations. Should/can the final be deleted from commons based on the known bad faith behavior in the first two or is it necessary to locate the source in every single case? Based on the quality and the fine black edge on its lower part I'm pretty sure we're looking at a scan from a book/article, but of course that is far from certain proof of a copyright violation. • Rabo³ • 13:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

  • I had not noticed that image licence, but I will ask about it over the next fer days; see Commons:Flickr_files especially the section "Questionable Flickr images" on commons about Flickr washing. There are several ways to suspect Flickr washing, including when Flickr users upload images that are taken with a lot of different cameras. Snowman (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks. • Rabo³ • 17:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


Hey Snowman. I was wondering, is this a project standard or your personal preference? No one has said nor done anything til now. I think the smaller person's name and year are okay but prefer the bolded Latin name.BarkingMoon (talk) 00:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I did all ten bird articles I've done the same and I just noticed you haven't changed them the same, so they're totally inconsistent now. Lord knows how the other bird articles are, but the ten I did were at least consistent. BarkingMoon (talk) 00:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
This is the style for the wiki - look at the binomial and the authority in the infobox. You got the brackets wrong as well. I think all the other 9 articles should be corrected. Snowman (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Where does it say that and why didn't you nor Cas notice it before? Also in your edit to the parrot you just made, you only changed some, not all, and I KNOW that's not right. Plus it looks worse now as the way you did it makes it all run together. BarkingMoon (talk) 00:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
It is standard - some with brackets and some without - look at the original source and look at other sources and the brackets are the same. When the brackets are not present, the bird has the name given by the author, but not when the bracket is present. Snowman (talk) 00:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Please correct the other 9 articles - take notice of where the brackets are and use a consistent format using small text. Do not use a lot of emboldening. Snowman (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
No I am not 'fixing' them.BarkingMoon (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
For one of many reasons, wiki's own FA's on birds aren't even consistent, so you can't say the Cas showed me how to do them is "wrong" nor that your way is "right". For example, compare subspecies in Yellow-tailed_Black_Cockatoo with Eurasian_Tree_Sparrow. BarkingMoon (talk) 00:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
User Casliber made aware. See User_talk:Casliber#Formatting_of_subspecies_lists. Snowman (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I made him aware beforehand. And what standard formatting? See my post just above. BarkingMoon (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay, BarkingMoon, trying to get conformity in wikipedia can be like herding cats really, and has really lagged behind content building, and many times folks have agreed to disagree. Brackets around an authority's name means that the name has changed since the first author described the bird, hence using it elsewhere can be confusing. We have had discussions about whether to place subspecies headers in bold on a page (I prefer it slightly, but the consensus is against it generally, so older bird FAs with it in should realistically be de-bolded. The other issue is that I pushed for taxonomy to go before description, which works well alot of the time....unless a bird has a lot of subspecies and one has to describe some of the differences under the subspecies subsections (but this does not work so good if these bits lie above the description section). Anyway, this is all part of a learning curve. Having editors who are more concerned about formatting is good as I can be a bit of a slob with it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
So the standard is that there is no standard, IE, it's up to whomever last edited the page. No, I'm not changing it because this week Snowman wants it a certain way, next week someone else will want it a third way, etc ad nauseum. If Snowman or someone else wants to format stuff a certain way, he can do it. And using brackets to discern if a name changed is just silly to me. I formatted all 10 of these articles exactly the same, putting a lot of time into, Snowman saw several of them and didn't say one word or change any of the formatting til now. And all 10 are still sitting on the DYK noms page but let's not go there.BarkingMoon (talk) 02:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I think that your bad habits in formatting should have been picked up earlier. I am more interested in parrot articles that most others, so I read it more carefully. Uniformity is important on the wiki, so keep to the approved style, which has been described by User Casliber and myself above. Snowman (talk) 06:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Heil! signed just a nobody. This edit of 09:48, 7 June 2011 - unsigned by BarkingMoon (talk)
I have tidied some of the formatting on several recently expanded pages going back to the original references to put the round brackets in the correct places. Wiki editors should accept that their edits will be re-edited and possibly re-edited again, and so contributors should be prepared to let this happen as long the sequence of edits improves the Wiki. Incidentally, I thought that is was odd that round brackets are used in this way when I first heard about it, but it is a well recognised convention apparently. A Wiki editor corrected my formatting and I learnt from it and his explanations in the edit summaries. As User Casliber suggests, put this learning experience down to the learning curve that editors experience, since I presume that you have learnt about standard author presentation (however silly the use round brackets may appear to be at first) and also edit histories. DYK articles are shown on the main page, and so I think that formatting errors and edit histories should be fixed prior to presentation on the main page. Snowman (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Please be careful...

...about biting the newcomers! While you undoubtedly feel strongly about these things, comments like "I think that your bad habits in formatting should have been picked up earlier." are certainly not constructive, and appear to have cost the project a very active new participant. This is not the first time that this has happened, and — since you yourself worried about the project regularly losing members several years ago — it would help if we all worked with each other rather than putting fences up. Take a step back, take a deep breath and think about how it sounds from the other end before putting "pen to paper" as it were! Just a suggestion. MeegsC | Talk 15:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

... and I do not think that the messenger should be criticized. As far as I am aware, no one else picked up these editing issues created by User BarkingMoon. With the benefit of hindsight, perhaps, I could have rephrased one or two things slightly differently, and perhaps I was somewhat disappointed that User BarkingMoon did not readily accept the standard use of round brackets selectively despite adequate edit summaries, explanation by myself, and explanation by User Casliber. Incidentally, I have put in quite a lot of work to help User BarkingMoon with his editing, which has temporarily distracted me from my interest in illustrating bird articles. This included quite long discussions on the WP:Bird talk page about the importance of maintaining edit histories, and also the use of round brackets and the formatting for subspecies and their authors. There was some urgency in repairing DYKs before their presentation on the main page. User Casliber appears to be generally supportive to me in all this work I have done to tidy up after User BarkingMoon and show him Wiki lore. Snowman (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
All I'm saying is that the messenger has the ability to phrase his/her message in a way that makes it less offensive to the person receiving the message. BarkingMoon may well have reacted very differently if those initial comments had been less confrontational. As it was, you came out with all guns blazing right from the start. On a separate note, if this is indeed something that is to be made standard, then the appropriate information needs to be added to the project page. Otherwise, we're assuming far too much detailed taxonomic knowledge on the part of editors who may not have any background in taxonomy, and it appears to newcomers like BarkingMoon that it's one person arbitrarily telling everybody else what to do. MeegsC | Talk 17:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
While your edit here was helpful, I note your edit which sounds to me like sarcasm here, while I was undertaking the rather difficult task of coordinating restoration of edit histories. Your edit summary was "what?!", and I think this shows that you had mis-read that editors were in a serious discussion about edit histories and that there was some resistance to the rightful restoration of edit histories. I read this as somewhat belittling and could have generated a feeling of disrespect to me by the very users I was trying the help. User BarkingMoon picked up on your comment with this edit saying "Here here, touche!", which I did not fully understand. Please think about your edits and what message they give. Snowman (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Believe me, I think very carefully about them all. And I write and don't save many that I (on re-reading them) think might be misinterpreted. My edit summary was my astonished reaction to your implication that my method of gathering notes and preparing entries in my sandbox before moving them piecemeal into a live article was somehow against the rules. You said "Are you sure the notes and piecemeal method are within the guideline" in your post directly above mine. It was meant to convey my complete puzzlement; in trying to help BarkingMoon, I suddenly found that I was being "chastised" as well! MeegsC | Talk 19:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
You left the question mark off the quote from my edit; see my edit here. The correct quote is; "Are the notes method and piecemeal method within the guidelines?" If you can not quote it properly, I guess that you did not understand it properly. It was a question to which I did not know the answer at the time. Now, I think (not completely certain) that the answer is that you can add small pieces of text from a sub-page as long as the work does not include any contributions from anyone else. I presume that editing this way keeps the attribution correct. I think that User BarkingMoon's comment "Here here, touche!" responding to your reply that you made in complete puzzlement actually enhanced the element of sarcasm in your comment. Snowman (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Photo reverting

See Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Reverting_on_Yellow-crowned_Bishop_photo. The image used for the DYK lead is temporarily copied from Commons so the DYK admins can protect it while it's on the main page. You and Chienlit have, hopefully unknowingly, subverted that. The smaller pic shows the bird centered and in more detail. This is something else you had ample chance to review when you were editing the article. The larger one is not better.BarkingMoon (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No, the small image is still going to be shown on the main page. The trouble here is that the small version on en wiki of the image for the infobox has the same name as the large image on commons, and this was a mistake. The en wiki image takes preference and this small image looks much to small for the infobox image, since the en wiki version was designed for the main page. The version of the image I shown is an image that fills the infobox space and looks better. Things can go back to normal when the en wiki version has been deleted. Snowman (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
No, dude, you're not getting it, see this, the en version copied from commons just for today with the same name ON PURPOSE so the en admins can protect it. And no, the bigger one is not better, the bird is not shown as well. And again, why didn't you, with your vast all-knowing experience here, catch this when you were editing the article? BarkingMoon (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
This is the image on commons File:Euplectes afer -Lake Baringo, Kenya -male-8 CROP.jpg that has the same name that goes in the infobox, but can not because an en wiki file has the same name. The protected file is the file that goes on the main page and it is the small image, that is to small for the infobox. Do not put the small image back in the infobox. Snowman (talk) 22:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
It has become clear on the DYK talk page that an admin uploaded a miniaturized image to en wiki by mistake. It is understandable that this problem has caused confusion. Only an admin could do something with the protected page, and I am glad it has been fixed (by uploading a full size image over the miniature image). I think that showing the uncropped image in the article infoxbox was practically the only thing an non-admin could do to temporarily improve the appearance of the article in preference to showing the miniature image that was here by mistake. I hope everyone likes the photo of this bird, and I am glad it is being shown properly now. It is an image I uploaded from Flickr and one taken by a photographer that kindly gives his images Wiki-friendly licences. Snowman (talk) 00:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind me posting here, as it appears that while I was off line the issue has been resolved. It appears I had inadvertently uploaded the thumb image that appeared on the queue page, rather than actual image on commons. I understand now how I had done come to do this, and can go into further detail if you wish, but do wish to apologize for the apparent mistake. Kindly Calmer Waters 02:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Black Bishop

Materialscientist (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

POTD notification

Hi Snow,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Buteo magnirostris -Goias -Brazil-8.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on June 16, 2011. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2011-06-16. howcheng {chat} 21:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


I was reading about medieval church graffiti in Cornerstone magazine, as one does, and a few days later I was travelling past one of the key sites so I took some pics of ship graffiti in St Nicholas, Blakeney. The pictures in the magazine and on this site can't be used under fair use because I don't think the graffiti would count as two-dimensional, and also the images have been processed to increase contrast, so that may be creative input. My two photos are unenhanced, so the graffiti is hard to see. What's the best procedure, just ramp up the contrast, or is there something more subtle? Thanks for any advice, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Without seeing your images, it is difficult to say. Do you want to show your photographs as accurate copies? Perhaps remove background? Contrast or saturation could be increased? Other manipulations to selectively alter areas of the photograph. Snowman (talk) 08:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


The vet article is only two pages, so I don't know how much more there is. I would have thought the present text was about right — don't want to make it disproportionate, given the insignificance of the UK population as a whole, and the few birds in the reintroduction.

You could well be right with the crop. When I was looking on commons, there were lots of rye fields. What I wanted was an image, taken within the breeding range, showing standing hay (ie breeding habitat) rather than the (easier) images of stacks and bales

I contacted the photographer, and it transpired that he got good contrast my using different lighting angles and combining the images digitally. That's not an option for me, but he kindly released three images under a suitable licence, which I've now uploaded instead of my efforts. Thanks anyway

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Commented over there. Snowman (talk) 22:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

POTD notification

Hi Snow,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Chordeiles minor -British Columbia -Canada-8c.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on July 11, 2011. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2011-07-11. howcheng {chat} 17:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

POTD notification

Hi Snow,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Aloe dichotoma -Keetmanshoop, Namibia-21Aug2009-2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on July 18, 2011. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2011-07-18. howcheng {chat} 18:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Photo title

File:Dumetella carolinensis -Cape May National Wildlife Refuge, New Jersey, USA-8.jpg Hi Snowman: While looking for potential photos to add to the Cape May NWR article, I noticed that the photo to the right is named in such a way as to imply it was taken in the refuge. (You uploaded it on 6 Jan 2011). However, when I look at the actual camera location details (and the description on the photo's page in Flickr) it was actually taken in the Nature Conservancy's property (known as the Cape May Migratory Bird Refuge) in Cape May rather than the National Wildlife Refuge. Can you please change the title to correctly reflect its location? Thanks! MeegsC | Talk 21:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much! Now I have to add that refuge to my list of "articles to write someday", since there's nothing on it yet... MeegsC | Talk 22:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


Thanks, Snowman. I've made a contribution, but given my studs-first approach to editing, it may not be helpful Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It is difficult being on the front line. I think that this is not going to be sorted out there soon. Where are the policies on merging and adding free content? What happens next? I have asked Cas, who is making some careful replies. Snowman (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Platycercus caledonicus -Tasmania -female-8.jpg

I'm pretty sure your "female" is a juvenile or something. I've never seen an adult Green Rosella that looks like that in my life (and I have seen plenty of them!). JJ Harrison (talk) 08:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

  • OK, I have opened it for discussion as Bird 1274 on WP Bird talk page. I made this identification with reference to Forshaw 2006, which says that the females have yellow fronts often with an orange hue on the neck. The one you have pointed at on looks like a typical juvenile, because its front is mainly green. The adults have bright yellow fronts, and sometimes the female has orange as well. This is featured in the referenced text in the species article. The adult female has a smaller beak than the male. I do not see any reason in textbooks to alter my identification at the present time. Snowman (talk) 09:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I wonder if it hasn't had a bath or something - the plumage is definitely abnormal for an adult. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Plumage does not become abnormal after a bird has had a bath. Snowman (talk) 09:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Awaiting comments on Bird talk page. Snowman (talk) 09:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hoogerwerf's Pheasan

Snowman: I was moving Aceh Pheasant to the IOC name of Hoogerwerf's Pheasant, but missed the "t". I tried undoing it, but it wouldn't let me.......Can you fix? Much appreciated......Also, I get the impression that there is some concern about some off the comments I made about the number of changes that need to be made to get the IOC english names listing up to date......I was not aiming at criticizing the entire project's work to date.....You all are doing splendidly......Just thought I'd help the cause. Sorry if you thought my tone was condencending.....Pvmoutside (talk) 01:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, so I can not do the move that you request. Occupied pages like this are blocked for moves by non-administrators. Snowman (talk) 11:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
It would be best to list your page move errors on the WP Bird talk page for the attention of administrators. Snowman (talk) 11:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance (2)

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on August 20, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 20, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article directors Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

One Flew Over...

Hi, Snowmanradio. I wanted to tell you why I reverted your revisions to One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (film). That Plot Summary had long been tagged as overlong, and several editors worked to put it on a diet. We just can't afford another 125 characters after all the sweat on the treadmill. Now if you want to go in and remove some stuff.... Cordially, HarringtonSmith (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

No, the emphasis is wrong. I will put one or two bits back trying to make it shorter. Snowman (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Update: I have made another attempt at editing the page knowing that brevity is needed. I feel sure that my new rewording has a better emphasis. Snowman (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you made it better.  :) — HarringtonSmith (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

whitethroats oops ;-)

Hello Snowmanradio. Thanks for tagging the whitethroat change I requested, sorry to report you've got a bit mixed up, it is Sylvia minula (formerly listed here as Small Whitethroat, now Desert Whitethroat) I requested the move for, not Sylvia curruca (which is, and always has been, Lesser Whitethroat. Thank you, British Birder (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Irian Jaya Birds

Snow, I guess you would call these extras. They are all labeled creative commons. I stumbled over them looking for Ptilorrhoa. If somebody wants to fool with them, let me know and I will go through them again to write out the Common Names, the bi-, or trinomials, and sex them as the case warrants. I don't have to look at what the wiki might have, as even I don't have some of this stuff in my personal DB Steve Pryor (talk) 11:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The pictures I saw were the wrong licence for Commons. Snowman (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
What should I be looking for as far as the licences? Doesn't one just have to ask permission?

Steve Pryor (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr and look for the copyright symbols on the Flickr. Snowman (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, it looks like I stumbled across the absolute worst! Sorry for wasting your time.Steve Pryor (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
It is worth knowing a little about copyright licences. It is possible to log into Flickr and ask the photographer to change to licence to a Commons friendly licence. Snowman (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Paradise Park

Just FYI: I went through the remaining articles that link to Paradise Park, Hayle, and updated them to Paradise Park, Cornwall. Don Lammers (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Richards (author)

Hi there. Per your request, I've restored the article and moved it to User:Snowmanradio/Stephen Richards (author) from mainspace. I've also created the redirect your requested; it seems reasonable. When you're done reviewing/copying, you can just mark it with {{delete}} - Alison 10:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

POTD notification

Hi Snowman,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Nestor notabilis -Fiordland, New Zealand-8b.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on September 8, 2011. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2011-09-08. howcheng {chat} 18:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Herbert Art Gallery and Museum Backstage Pass

Herbert Art Gallery and Museum Backstage Pass! - You are invited!
The Coventry Boy - - 1272338.jpg
The Herbert Art Gallery and Museum is hosting its first Backstage Pass on Saturday 1 October 2011. Attendees will experience behind-the-scenes tours of areas including the on- and off-site stores, archives and galleries (which include local history, geology and paintings by Old Masters). After a complimentary lunch, we will settle down for talks, more tours and an editing session, in which participants will work closely with curators on topics they're interested in. For more information and to sign up, see the event page. We hope you'll join us! The Cavalry (Message me) 18:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Possible image for "bird vision" article

great idea Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


Regarding [1], I don't have access to that specific book, but given its title isn't it more likely to say something about the early editions of EB "growing in popularity and size" than about the specific number of volumes the 3rd edition has? Cheers, —Ruud 10:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have found the abstract which says enough to use the ref to say that the EB became well known by the beginning of the 19th centenary. I have moved the ref points to reflect this and added this to the main body of the text. Snowman (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Scottish birds

The Sparrowhawk is as claimed. The Sand Martin looks like an adult, well-defined breast band, no grey or buff on the face or neck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Snowman (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Photo title change needed

Hi Snowman: I happened across this file [2], which you uploaded back in April on Commons while I was searching for a picture of a chick with an egg tooth. The photo is currently labelled as a duckling, but it's actually an adult male! Can you correct the title and remove it from the "chick" category? Thanks! MeegsC | Talk 16:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Whoops. Corrected. Snowman (talk) 20:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Picture help

Hi Snowman: I was wondering if you'd be willing to make a crop of an existing photo, with perhaps an arrow added showing the location of an egg tooth. The photo "File:Arctic Tern chick.jpg" shows a an egg tooth really well, but it's so small at the "regular" display size that it's virtually useless. A tighter crop, perhaps showing just the head, would be much better. Can you please let me know if that's something you could do? I'm hoping to put it into the Beak#Egg tooth section. Thanks! MeegsC | Talk 20:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

See cropped version at File:Arctic Tern chick-4c.jpg. The image is a bit noisy at high resolution, but it does show the egg tooth. Snowman (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
That's brilliant! Thanks very much. MeegsC | Talk 20:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I think a parrot chick looses its egg tooth after about 2 weeks. Snowman (talk) 21:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Italian Wiki

Snow, In reference to:

You are much more on top of the administrative workings of the wiki than I am. There is talk of blocking all italian IP's. Presumably this means myself (I live near Rome). Is there any truth to this?Steve Pryor (talk) 08:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I would expect free speech will prevail. Snowman (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
It appears to have been a temporary protest, see Signpost news item Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

St Nicks

I've changed the brass plaque image for your better one. Compared to some of the bird articles (Zapata Rail, Zino's Petrel) there is a positive abundance of images for this church — I still have some of my own that I haven't uploaded yet! I like the current exterior lead picture because of the lighting. I'm reluctant to add any extra images while it's at FAC, since it's in danger of becoming cluttered already, even with the judicious use of double and triple images. I think that there are images that could be added later, like the pulpit, but I'd rather wait until after FAC is completed, one way or the other. After all, the images are available through the Commons link anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Coxswain 1896–1920. He was 62 in January 1918, so born ca 1856. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Dates added to image description on Commons. Snowman (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey


New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Snowmanradio! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


I don't have anything, but I've been meaning to hit HANZAB in the library, which will have it if anywhere does. Meant to tell you. I may be able to go after supervising exams tomorrow afternoon. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

POTD notification

Hi Snowman,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Lamprotornis hildebrandti -Tanzania-8-2c.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on November 6, 2011. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2011-11-06. howcheng {chat} 17:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

All the little tweety birds...

Any chance of putting them in one list an I'll do the lot. Or is it easier to list them individually as you come across them? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Can I assume this is about re-naming of bird species articles? Snowman (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


Despite the mania at FAC for referencing everything, the policy is still that you only need to reference what might be challenged. Since there isn't a pub in Titchwell, that's unlikely to occur. I've referenced what is there, which is more to the point. It's difficult to reference a negative anyway, and in practice isn't a cause for concern unless I've made a factual error. For example, in the St Nicholas' FA, I've not referenced the lack of notability of the people (except Tim Birkin) buried there, or most of the rectors. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

No thyself

Thanks for that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Snowman - thanks for your help on No Thyself - I've added some reviews (and references for same) - "to make the album 'more significant and notable'!!!" PaukiPKK (talk) 10:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)PaukiPKK
When you have finished editing the article today I plan to do some re-formatting, so have a look later and see what you think and see if you can enhance the article further. Meanwhile, can you summarise what is in the reviews rather than copying portions of the reviews, for copyright reasons. Snowman (talk) 10:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:No Thyself -Magazine album cover (250x250).jpg

Thank you for uploading File:No Thyself -Magazine album cover (250x250).jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Puffin Let's talk! 14:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Licence details added, so banner removed. Snowman (talk) 14:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Genus author

I'm not quite sure what it is you are asking. Genus authorities follow the same convention as any taxanomic rank - the last name of the scientist that erected the genus (with initials if there is more than one scientist with that name), a comma, and the year that genus was erected. So Erythrura was described as a genus by William John Swainson 1837, so the authority would be rendered as Swainson, 1837. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Is it "Agne & Pacheco" or "Agne and Pacheco"? Snowman (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Use the ampersand. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
on Pinyon Jay and Wedge-billed Woodcreeper is it Wied-Neuwied or Wied? Snowman (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Not really my expertise, if confronted with that question I'd check a bunch of of sources and see which was most common. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, this really is not a surname. It is a moniker by which the personage became known in ornithological circles, and it is actually a reference to a no longer existing state of Rheinland-Palitinate, province of Wied, with capital Neuwied - Prince Alexander Philipp Maximilian zu Wied-Neuwied. I have normally seen it in the most abbreviated form as simply Wied.Steve Pryor (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Pages now corrected. Snowman (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Diglossa, dab, what is primary topic? Snowman (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Psophodes, Fawn-breasted Tanager, Climacteris, Rock-jumper and Passerina wrong author? Snowman (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Diglossa seems evenly split between the two, fine as a dab in my book. I will check the other genera when I get home. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Tanager, Rock-jumper and Passerina all correct according to ITIS and or my books, I have corrected Psophodes and Climacteris. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Listing issues: Snowman (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Berlepsch authority for Lophotriccus, there are two ornithologists with this name, one has a wikipage for wikilink. Snowman (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that's right though his full name is rather a piece of work, i.e., Hans Hermann Carl Ludwig, Graf von BerlepschSteve Pryor (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Amandava zoonomen has genus_authority = Blyth, 1836 Snowman (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Philetairus genus_authority = Smith, A, is it "A. Smith" or "Smith, A" in authority. What is the format? Snowman (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Sharpe with a final -e-.Steve Pryor (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
My scrip transcribed it correctly to the Wiki article and put "Sharpe, 1881". Snowman (talk) 10:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Correct. The HM has CAMPOCHAERA Sharpe, 1878 F.Steve Pryor (talk) 10:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Any full stops between initials? Snowman (talk) 21:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
The HM has RHYNCHOSTRUTHUS Sclater & Hartlaub, 1881 F. This is P.L. Sclater, but I have noticed that whereas the HM cites P.L. Sclater when he is the sole describer, when the same person is involved with another, using the ampersand, that the intitials are omitted by the HM. I have looked through a number of citations and so far I have not found any of the ampersand citations where any initials are used, with one exception (V. Megabyas below).Steve Pryor (talk) 10:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
The prevailing usage, and there may even be some ICZN protocol directly addressing this particular question, is no periods and no spaces.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I wish I had know earlier. I will amend my script to follow this format. Are there commas in the authors name itself. For clarity please write about four examples including the correct name, date, and punctuation. Include at least one with more than one author. Is "et al" used for multiple authors? Snowman (talk) 10:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I will try and find time to take a trip through ICZN to make sure I am giving you the straight dope.Steve Pryor (talk) 13:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
So far I have not been able to find where this particular question is dealt with. I will probably just look at a bunch of taxonomies to find out how they have dealt with the question. In any case, instances in which two initials are required I expect to be few. The rules for bibliographies, and for original papers seem to be different from these sorts of genus citations. et al (or et alia - gender neutral), or the alternative forms et alii (multiple authors all masculine), et aliae (multiple authors all feminine), but don't use these latter two as they are for the real pedants, is yes for multiple authors, a sort of short-hand used often when the authors are more than two. If two, both are generally cited with an ampersand.Steve Pryor (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Have now looked through some taxonomies. Apparently, I am wrong. I am going to take Ed Dickinson's approach as being good knowing just exactly how meticulous that he is. Examples (from the HM 3° Ed.): single name; WOODFORDIA North, 1906 F; APALOPTERON Bonaparte, 1854 N: two names; MADANGA Rothschild & Hartert, 1923 F: single name with one initial; LOPHOZOSTEROPS E. Hartert, 1896 M: single name with two initials (to notice here the use of the periods, and the lack of a space between the two initials) THRYOMANES P.L. Sclater, 1862 M. To note that the intials, when present, always precede the surname, and that this obtains also in the case of two authors with the ampersand. If you find citations with three initials, you treat them as the two initialed citations, that is, period but no space between the initials, one space between the last period of the last initial and the surname. The HM capitalizes and italicizes the presentation of the monomial generic name. I think they do this because they then list all of the species italicized with just the first initial of the generic name capitalized, and for contrast. I don't know if there is a convention dictating the capitalization of the singleton generic name and they may be doing this simply to make it more noticeable that in their listing there is a another genus, different from the previous genus in the listing sequence, to look at. Oh yes, the M, the F, and the N at the end of the citation was included by Dickinson on purpose because the volume was presenting the work by Gosselin as to the correct gender of the generic names. That I know of it is not necessary, though personally I would include them since it is useful information in particular for understanding the desinance that the subspecific taxa use.Steve Pryor (talk) 09:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
That is helpful. It is logical to put full stops after initials, rather than commas. I understand that initials are used for authors who share the same second name with another author. I will have to do another run going over my previous edits removing the commas and putting full stops in where relevant, and I plan to do this after a phase of consolidation and learning. As this and the general formatting of authors will apply to 100s of articles and possibly 1000s, I would appreciate if you could confirm once again that full stops are used after initials and commas are not. I would like to get it right next time. Snowman (talk) 11:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
In all cases in which I have cited the HM, knowing that the spacing was important to you and not wanting to add to the damage that I had already done with my erroneous counsel, I was painstakingly meticulous in the transcription as is in the HM including the periods (that you call full-stops), and the spacing.
As far as commas, I have seen them being used, and I have now come to the conclusion improperly, in various scientific papers, e.g., citations with the scientific name, then first the surname, immediately a comma, and then initials. However, one thing that I know for sure is that Ed Dickinson is a real stickler when it comes to the ICZN. I have seen no indication that he uses this inverted order. Other than before the year of description, a comma would make sense only if there was a list of describing authors, all listed.Steve Pryor (talk) 12:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
The correct date is 1876.Steve Pryor (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
As sometimes happens, this is a question of defining what "is" is. Click on the Citation link on zoonomen for the explanation. Then just follow your own instinct on this. You have a 50-50 chance of being right. Personally, to me it seems rather tenuous to try and base a decision on the presumed intentions or on unproved allegations of maybe something, a part of something, having been published soon enough to obtain taxonomic naming precedence. Either way, I would not lose any sleep over this minutium.Steve Pryor (talk) 18:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • My script used a partial match with "Xenops Illiger 1811". I have fixed that bug now. There might be an occasional edit like this, where one genus name has extra letters on the end of another genus name, the possible error being with the genus with the longer name. My script should always write in the genus authority and date listed on the current version on zoonomen. Snowman (talk) 12:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Pseudasthenes - a compound of the pre-existing Asthenes (from the Gr. asthenēs insignificant; an epithet of the bird boudutēs (now associated with the Yellow Wagtail Motacilla, to which the canasteros were formerly considered related). Op.cit.: Jobling 2010). Pseudasthena is a butterfly.Steve Pryor (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
zoonomen has Pseudasthenes. Are zoonomen wrong? Do they have the author correst with "Derryberry, Claramunt, O'Quin, Aleixo, Chesser,RT, Remsen & Brumfield 2010"? Snowman (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Snow, here is a link to the original describing paper: Steve Pryor (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Odd, the authors are different in the pdf to what is listed in zoonomen. Snowman (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I would imagine that the Authors would make sure their names are right on their own original work.Steve Pryor (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I hope that User Sabine's Sunbird will be able to fix the red-link to Pseudasthenes on the Wiki. Snowman (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Strike-out line above. Whoops, I was looking at something different. zoonomen has it correct. The have "Pseudasthenes (f.) Derryberry, Claramunt, O'Quin, Aleixo, Chesser,RT, Remsen & Brumfield 2010 Zootaxa 2416 p.61-68". Snowman (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Is Pseudasthenes currently missing from the Wiki. Is this genus widely accepted? Snowman (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it is. The SACC voted in favor some time ago for the erection of the genus, and as far as I am concerned when it comes to neotropical taxonomy, there is God, and then there is the SACC!Steve Pryor (talk) 22:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I have posted an alert at WP Birds talk page of a likely missing genus on the Wiki. Snowman (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Greater Scythebill, is it written "Claramunt, Derryberry, Chesser,RT, Aleixo & Brumfield, 2010" or "Claramunt et al., 2010 "? Snowman (talk) 10:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Please see new section below (Reflections Concerning HM Approach). I will get around to my viewpoint on this question during the discussion.
Snow, I need a clarification. Is it the intent of the wiki to associate current taxonomy attributing it to first-describers of a taxon that in fact did not use this taxonomy? In this particular case, the first-describer was Des Murs, however he described the bird as "Xiphorhynchus Pucherani".Steve Pryor (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I hope User Sabine's Sunbird will answer. Snowman (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Heinrich Gustav was son to Ludwig. Carl vonReichenbach was not related.Steve Pryor (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Taeniopygia Reichenbach (1862) refers to Ludwig Reichenbach, or better, Heinrich Gottlieb Ludwig ReichenbachSteve Pryor (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Likewise, Ludwig Reichenbach for the Syndactyla from Handb. spec. Orn. Cont. X, Scansoriae A. Sittinae Steve Pryor (talk) 21:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
In any case, yes, you should put in the initial since there is a possibility of confusion. Both father and son were, among other things, ornithologists.Steve Pryor (talk) 21:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
This is confusing. There are a lot on zoonomen with just "Reichenbach" with no initials. Awaiting comments. Snowman (talk) 21:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, then we will just have to deal with them one by one. However, that I am aware of only the father published ornithological treatises, and almost certainly any generic name attributed to Reichenbach will prove to be Ludwig Reichenbach. It must be remembered that back then to describe genera people published books, not like now when just a simply describing paper is sufficient.Steve Pryor (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I see. I will edit my own list of Passerine genus authors with the initial for Ludwig Reichenbach where relevant, and that will not take long. If you find any exceptions, please let me know. Snowman (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Batis (f.), zoonomen has Boie,F 1833 Isis 26 col.880 Systematics Snowman (talk) 13:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Zoonomen has this flower listed, but I was looking for the "Platysteiridae". What could Batis be in ornithology? Snowman (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Snow, your question is not clear, however, I am going to presume that you are asking for the ornithological etymology of Batis. Batis: Gr. batis grub- or worm-eating bird mentioned by Aristotle, not further identified, but later associated with a variety of passerines. (Op.cit.: Jobling (2010), p.68). In any case, the correct attribution is to Friedrich Boie.Steve Pryor (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Friedrich.Steve Pryor (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Script used to edit article. Snowman (talk) 21:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I will have to conjecture here. The attribution of the generic name goes to Bonaparte 1838 from a Checklist he published that year. It is not given to us to know to which bird he was applying this generic name, and I don't personally have the sort of access it would require for me to discover this item. Thereafter, taxon melanocorys was described in 1885 by Stejneger. Also not known if he originally described it using the generic name Calamospiza sensu Bonaparte. In any event, that is where taxon melanocorys wound up, in the Calamospiza first coined by Bonaparte in 1838.Steve Pryor (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Lioptilus (m.) zoonomen has Bonaparte 1850 Consp.Gen.Av. 1 p.332. Snowman (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
That's right.Steve Pryor (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Article amended to "Bonaparte, 1850". Snowman (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Most correctly, it is the former (though I have doubts about the hyphen). However, as so many things and since English is and has been a lingua franca, the name has been anglicized.Steve Pryor (talk) 22:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • zoonomen says "Megabyas (m.) Verreaux,J & Verreaux,E) 1855 Rev.Mag.Zool.(2) 7 p.348". One bracket is used. Is this in brackets or not? Snowman (talk) 11:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
A typo for me. Should be Megabyas flammulatus Verreaux,J & Verreaux,E, 1855Steve Pryor (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
This seems to be the single exception to the non-inclusion of initials in the ampersand-type citations, the case of a shared surname. The HM renders this MEGABYAS J. & E. Verreaux, 1855 M.Steve Pryor (talk) 10:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Fine. I will make that a special case. I note the fullstops here again. I also note a space between the fullstop and the ampersand after "J" and the space between the the full stop and the second name after "E". I am sure you are correct, but I would like one more confirmation that there is a space after full-stops and before both the ampersand and second name in all cases. I am double checking, because this will go on 100s or 1000s of pages. Snowman (talk) 11:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Is it Hylacola Gould 1843? I think I got this from hidden text on zoonomen. It does not render on the zoonomen website. Snowman (talk) 11:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
That should be right. From the Christidis & Boles recent Systematics and Taxonomy of Australian Birds, they have Hylacola cauta Gould, 1843. They also list H. pyrrhopygia (Vigors & Horsfield, 1827), but since it is within parentheses it should mean that they described it with another generic name and the species pyrrhopygia was associated to genus Hylacola at a later date.Steve Pryor (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Pseudasthenes Derryberry et al., 2010. Is it with et al or are all the authors written out as well? Snowman (talk) 12:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Make it easy on yourself, use et al.Steve Pryor (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I do not actually type it in. The scrip transcribes all of the authors from zoonomen and writes it on the correct line with the date. I can change full stops and commas and so on with the script. What I want to check is what is the standard way of writing this list of authors of a genus and not what it the easiest way to write it. Snowman (talk) 11:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Will take a good look later tonight with this specific point in mind. I have seen already one citation where four authors were listed, however, as I recall it was for the description of a subspecies of something, and not for the naming of a Genus.Steve Pryor (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
The right Reichenbach is always Ludwig.Steve Pryor (talk) 17:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
That make it simpler? Snowman (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • zoonomen has "Phyllanthus (m.) Lesson 1844 EchoMondeSav.(2) 11 no.49 col.1165", but the Wiki has something else. Which? Snowman (talk) 13:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Snow, sometimes the dates seem out of whack, sometimes the date of first description precede the date of the first use of the generic name. Swainson 1837 described only race atripennis as Crateropus atripennis. Lesson first used the generic name Phyllanthus in 1844, and he has the naming rights to the generic name.Steve Pryor (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Sturnus, different years for zoonomen and Wiki. Which? Snowman (talk) 13:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Snow, take a break, drink a coffee with a bit of cognac, relax. They are both Linnaeus 1758.Steve Pryor (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
They are the same because I corrected it on the Wiki. See edit history. Snowman (talk) 17:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


Hi, did you find a reference somewhere that said that the genus name Phyllanthus is due to Lesson rather than Linnaeus, or is AWB that much of a bull in a china shop? Nadiatalent (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see this was mentioned above. It is an ambiguous genus name. Don't touch the plants, please. Nadiatalent (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I rather agree with you here. From the Greek phullon leaf. In some obscure manner associated to genus Anthus (the Pipits). The next time I see Lesson, I will castigate him! Doubtless he was unaware that Phyllanthus of Kingdom Plantae even existed when he used it.Steve Pryor (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
This is just the sort of feed-back that is useful. I plan to write a few lines in the script to check the infobox has "order = aves (or birds)", before editing the article. There are about a score of bird genera that have been sidelined to "Genus (bird)". I wonder if it would be best for Phyllanthus to be a dab. Snowman (talk) 11:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Snow, one thing to consider, as far as I know the naming conventions are different for zoological biota than for botanical biota. I believe there is for Plantae an entirely different set of conventions analogous to ICZN, but just for plants. This probably has something to do with the possibility of having generic names common to the two Kingdoms.Steve Pryor (talk) 12:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
The number of genus-name collisions between the ICBN (now the ICN) and the ICZN is huge. The number seems particularly large between algae and fossil brachiopods. Nadiatalent (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I now have the HBW Tax Excel

Snow, You mentioned another user, Richard Farnbrough I believe. If he is interested in the Excel, please put us in contact. I would need his e-mail.Steve Pryor (talk) 12:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Rich Farmbrough. Snowman (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

This Book Would Be Useful


I will think about getting this the next time I intend making book orders, but we are talking about maybe six months from now. It would be extremely useful in the present. I wonder if there is a way to ask the wiki community if someone already has it? Steve Pryor (talk) 08:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Reflections Concerning HM Approach

Snow, I will expect you to just copy this section out, stick it in a word.doc, and digest at your leisure. All of it will be based on what I have been apprised of by examining the HM 3° Ed., some I will cite textually (between quotations), and some I will relate paraphrastically just for my own ease of relating it to you, and some will just be my own reflections where I have not been able to discover specific answers to specific questions.

First, just some examples (from the HM).

Though normally I find Sclater in two-author ampersand situations as simply Sclater, also: Tinamus major robustus (I am writing these out fully on purpose, and will do so also in other examples, so as not to confuse - actually written in the text as T.m.robustus)with Authorship P.L. Sclater & Salvin, 1868

Crypturellus undulatus manapiare Phelps & Phelps, Jr., 1952 Meleagris gallopavo osceola W.E.D. Scott, 1890 Oceanodroma matsudairae N. Kuroda, Sr., 1922 Charadrius placidus J.E. & G.R. Gray, 1863 Tringa totanus terrignotae R. & A. Meinertzhagen, 1926

examples of triple-ampersand situations:

Bostrychia rara (Rothschild, Hartert & Kleinschmidt, 1897) Phalacrocorax auritus heuretus Watson, Olson & Miller, 1991 Torgus tracheliotus negevensis Bruun, Mendelssohn & Bull, 1981 Grus antigone gillae Schodde, Blackman & Haffenden, 1989

examples of greater than triple-ampersand situations:

XENOPERDIX Dinesen, Lehmberg, Svendsen, Hansen & Fjeldså, 1994 M Diomedea exulans amsterdamensis Roux, Jouventin, Mougin, Stahl & Weimerskirch, 1983 Scolopax bukidnonensis Kennedy, Fisher, Harrap, Diesmos & Manamtam, 2001

Now, I went through 160 pages of citations. In only one instance did I find an "et al".

Neophron percnopterus majorensis Donazar et al., 2002 This was also footnoted. Dickinson apparently felt that the use of this special symbol gave him license to treat this particular entry as a special case. The significance of the symbol = "implies that we are unsure that anyone has re-evaluated the name since its proposal"

In Appendix II Dickinson states "Space within the checklist itself precludes listing all authors when more than five have authored a name." OK. This brings me to the discussion of the Pseudasthenes citation, which has more than five. Dicksonson's affirmation implies that had the space been available all contributing Authors would have been cited by him, and this is my recommendation also for the wiki which has no such space constraint. However, unless there is a real reason for believing that the surname of a given author is shared with others also contributing to and describing avian taxa, I would recommend leaving out the initials, and certainly if they are included I would have them preceding the surname to which they belong, and not following the surname in any form, with full-stops or not, with a comma separating them which follows immediately the surname.

Special cases (prout HM) of long surnames:

"P.L. Statius Müller has in the past been given as P.L.S. Müller; however it is now clear that his family name was Statius Muller (Kooiman, 1950). He used the umlaut at least when publishing in Germany. Du Bus de Gisignies is here always abbreviated to Du Bus." Further "We have consistently used Conrad von Baldenstein as all this was his family name (Meyer de Schauensee is a similar case)". I add, also Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, and there are three of them (denoted by the initials: A.; E.; and I.

Initials (always prout HM)

"Initials are given in every case where we have found that two or more authors with the same surname have named birds listed here. When they wrote together in pairs we give tham as, for example, I.C.J. & E.H. Galbraith. When both have the same initials we use Sr. and Jr. as for W.H. Phelps, father and son, (in the case of the Kurodas, Nagamichi is given as N. Kuroda, Sr. and Nagahisa as N. Kuroda, Jr. Any of these authors writing alone is given his or her initials. When these individuals were or are co-authors with others with differing surnames the initials are dropped, as little or no confusion is likely."

Snow, hope this is of some small utility.Steve Pryor (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Editing break

Where Wiki differs from zoonomen and other issues: Snowman (talk) 00:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

  • So far I have been seeing simply Naumann & Naumann. I must determine if there are only two Naumann that have described avian taxa. If there are only two, then the initials are unnecessary.Steve Pryor (talk) 11:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Have now checked. These are the only two Naumann. Father and son as far as I can figure. The initials are not necessary.Steve Pryor (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
What about "J.A & J.F. Naumann"?
Yes, it is OK if you want to use them, and better the second form if you really must use them. The initials are not necessary however. Only two Naumann described avian taxa, and they are both here!Steve Pryor (talk) 11:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Seleucidis - correct is 1834.Steve Pryor (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Tchagra - I read through all of Dickinson's reasoning, and it seems coherent to me. 1831 should be correct.Steve Pryor (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Taraba - same reason as above. 1831 should be correct.Steve Pryor (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
OK. Saxicoloides; Pitohui; Corvinella are all described in the same book by Lesson, in the year 1831.Steve Pryor (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Chamaea - correct is 1847.Steve Pryor (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Most correct = Lacépède. The version sans the diacritics has been anglicized.Steve Pryor (talk) 12:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Can you give me a citation where this name occurs?Steve Pryor (talk) 09:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
This will take some digging. Stachyridopsis should be Oates, 1883. Thus in HBW (the text not the site), and cross referenced on - which though not giving an obvious motivation render it Oates (ex Sharpe MS), 1883. I will render clear the significance of "MS" later since it constitutes the reason for the precedence of Oates.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Diphyllodes - will cross check. From memory, Diphyllodes was a subgenus under genus Cicinnurus, but now elevated to genus rank (Cicinnurus becoming a monotypic genus).Steve Pryor (talk) 07:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Have come back for this. The correct answer is that depending on the taxonomic authority being followed that it is either a subgenus (under Cicinnurus) or a genus in its own right.Steve Pryor (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Elaphrornis is correct as it is given on Zoonomen. If you want to use the binomial existing at the bottom of the taxobox on the wiki, you must put Blyth, and the description year between parentheses. It is something you will see again. Elaphrornis as a monomial generic name was first used by Legge. Blyth described taxon palliseri in 1851 as being in genus Bradypterus. When this happens you can pass the citation, but only for a binomial, to the describer of the specific taxon in a subsequently (or previously) coined genus, but the name of the specific taxon describer (and the year) is put into parentheses. If wanting to cite Blyth, then two forms are formally correct; Brachypteryx palliseri Blyth, 1851, and Elaphrornis palliseri (Blyth, 1851).Steve Pryor (talk) 10:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Oreolais as is already on the wiki is correct as per the monomial genus authority. Steve Pryor (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Pachyramphus - see explanation on the link of Zoonomen as to the acta of the Beagle voyage. The point they make about the date seems to be correct, amend to 1839. The discussion about co-authorship I will concede seems also correct. My recommendation is PACHYRAMPHUS Gould & G.R. Gray, 1839Steve Pryor (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Sphenocichla - attribution to Hume is incorrect. Mandelli described taxon humei in his honor, but he described it as Heterorhynchus Humei. The current generic name has the correct attribution to SPHENOCICHLA Godwin-Austen & Walden, 1875Steve Pryor (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Allenia - correct is ALLENIA Cory, 1891. Statius Muller described fusca as Muscicapa fusca. If using the binomial in the taxbox and attributing it to Statius Muller, the correct form is Allenia fusca (Statius Muller, 1776)Steve Pryor (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Eleoscytalopus, this should be ELEOSCYTALOPUS Maurício, Mata, Bornschein, Cadena, Alvarenga & Bonatto, 2008. A generic nomen novum for a correctly constituted new genus. As far as I can ascertain the citation as is on zoonomen is incorrect. Nachtigall (v. Maurício) is not his surname, it is his middle name.Steve Pryor (talk) 18:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Snow, I directly advised Dr. Peterson about this, and he agrees that it was a lapsus. He has not corrected the citation as yet, but he will.Steve Pryor (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Wrote in article as explained above. Snowman (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Will go through the other ones tomorrow...Steve Pryor (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Snow, I noticed that the citation for Sphenocichla roberti at the very bottom of the taxobox has the citation within parentheses. It does not go in parentheses in this case since not only did they describe Sphenocichla as a genus, but they described taxon roberti as Sphenocichla roberti. Any time you see binomial citations being parenthesized it means that the specific taxon was described with another generic name, and then passed to the current generic name at a later date (N.B. this is true also in the case that we were treating scientific trinomina, i.e., were we providing citations for subspecies-level taxa). Another thing that might be worthy of note. I have seen sites that parenthesize in these cases only the name(s) of the describers of the specific taxon The HM does not do this, and in my estimation it includes the date within the parentheses for a good reason. This formula implies that not only did the describer(s) describe such and such a taxon, but they did it in a certain year, and there is therefore a direct connection between the authors and the year of the description. Leaving the date outside of the parentheses might engender confusion.Steve Pryor (talk) 08:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Cantorchilus - here is the bare bones version, and I checked the surnames (i.e., how many authors of a given name have described anything). CANTORCHILUS N. Mann, Barker, J. Graves, Dingess-Mann & P. Slater, 2006.Steve Pryor (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Peucedramus - correct is PEUCEDRAMUS Coues, 1875.Steve Pryor (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Delichon - correct is DELICHON Moore, 1854. (V. SNAB 14 for the motivation).Steve Pryor (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Pied Monarch

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Linking book title

It appears that you have a rule on your AWB for linking book titles, particularly to "The Fauna of British India..." - the cite book template uses a url parameter which is often used to link to the relevant page which works on the title and so when a title itself is linked in the template, it does not look very nice. I wonder if you would be willing to drop this rule. The replacement of the short title with the long title (both of which are acceptably in scholarly journals) is perfectly fine however. Shyamal (talk) 02:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Parrot authority names

Anomalies and difficulties with parrot general authors and dates: Snowman (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Please present the specifics in each case. As far as Forshaw not providing the generic citations, well, neither does Juniper & Parr, and neither does Arndt's Parrot Lexicon. However, the text version of the HBW does, but not the IBC site.Steve Pryor (talk) 08:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Loriculus, correct is 1849 (v. SNAB 51).Steve Pryor (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Aprosmictus, correct is 1842 (v. Schodde & Mason, 1997)Steve Pryor (talk) 13:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Mascarinus Lesson, 1830 is correct.Steve Pryor (talk) 13:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Different year in Wiki and zoonomen. I might have already amended the Wiki. Snowman (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • All were corrected by the script as it passed through this batch. Snowman (talk) 11:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Orthopsittaca - completely different on Wiki. Forshaw 2006 has same name as zoonomen. Snowman (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Unless you have changed it on the wiki, it is correct on the wiki (and also on zoonomen).Steve Pryor (talk) 08:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I have changed the Wiki for Orthopsittaca. Snowman (talk) 11:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • zoonomen had some good data on the parrots. Snowman (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Batch of first 10 bird orders

For the Boie question, they are all Friedrich.Steve Pryor (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Fulmar? If you mean Fulmarus it is Stephens, 1826.Steve Pryor (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Argusianus. Well, it makes me wonder who originally edited some of these things! The correct monomial genus citation is ARGUSIANUS G.R. Gray, 1849. It is correct in the taxbox, but the reference in the text referring to Rafinesque should be deleted (and replaced by the genus namer, Gray). Rafinesque proposed a nomen nudum for an already preoccupied generic name, i.e., Argus. Gray finally proposed an acceptable generic name in 1849, so Rafinesque is just out of luck and will not be remembered for this genus.

Steve Pryor (talk) 17:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

For the Eudromia citation, it is I. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1832.Steve Pryor (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
You must have corrected this already. They are identical, and correct on both the wiki and on zoonomen.Steve Pryor (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Cereopsis. The correct date associated in all cases to Latham is 1802 (in the taxbox you have two different dates associated 1801, and 1802); further, if you are going to cite the subspecific taxa they go as follows: Cereopsis n. novaehollandiae Latham, 1802; and Cereopsis n. grisea (Viellot, 1818) - the reason for the latter being that Viellot described the taxon as Anser griseus.Steve Pryor (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
The script had corrected date for the author of the genus. Above details for species and subspecies details written in Cereopsis taxobox. Snowman (talk) 11:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Polyplectron - correct is POLYPLECTRON Temminck, 1807, as per ICZN Opinion 67. Formerly, 1813.Steve Pryor (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC) Gallus - correct is GALLUS Brisson, 1760. Recently the naming date was reviewed and amended. It was formerly cited as 1766.Steve Pryor (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC) Dendragapus citation is correct both on wiki and on zoonomen. Elliot, 1864.Steve Pryor (talk) 18:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC) Numida - formerly Linnaeus, 1766. Now, correctly (as per ICZN decision in merit), NUMIDA Linnaeus, 1764.Steve Pryor (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Zoonomen had some good data here. I had already corrected many of the pages, and additional amendments have been done. Snowman (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Snow, I noticed an inconsistency in the Eleoscytalopus citation, and this is my fault - I put the accent on the -i- of the surname of the lead author incorrectly - it should be Maurício! Further, I checked the spelling of the reference listed on the wiki and Mata should be spelled with just one -t-, not two.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
sp corrected in Maurìcio. Wiki already had one "t" in Mata. Snowman (talk) 09:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
The generic citation was right, one -t-, the reference is wrong however, two -t's-.Steve Pryor (talk) 11:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
The accent goes the other way in the citation for "Maurício". Is that wrong as well? Snowman (talk) 11:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Damn it! It would seem you are right. The limitations of the web, and errors propagated by others that we then take as being good. I have decided to go to the source on this. This should be a page that this Author made himself, and if he doesn't know which way the accent goes, well, then nobody does - he spells it Maurício. Steve Pryor (talk) 12:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Batch of bird orders 11 to 27

General queries from Wiki

Is Glareola a genus? Snowman (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC) What does (partim) mean after the genus authority - now removed from Tattler (bird).

Where did you say you saw this? I can still remember my latin enough to know that it is latin for "for the most part". I would need to see the context to even hazard a guess. On the surface, if in the context of a genus citation, it is counterintuitive to me to think of part of one person naming a taxon, and another part not, that is unless he possessed multiple personalities! Another possibility would be that there is doubt as to the naming authority and even though somebody has decided to cite somebody, that they might have doubts that other unnamed people may have been involved in the naming, in other words, the cited authority may not be worthy of full naming prestige because somebody thinks someone else was involved, but that they are not sure exactly who. However, I am just throwing mud on the wall here.Steve Pryor (talk) 14:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
The line in the taxobox was "Genus: Tringa (partim)". Snowman (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
In that case I can only surmise that whoever stuck it on there must have thought it part of, or related to genus Tringa. I would not worry about it. It does not seem to make any citational sense.Steve Pryor (talk) 15:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
The citation is GLAREOLA Brisson, 1760.Steve Pryor (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Why do Glareola and Stiltia share the same page at Pratincole? Snowman (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Is this a trick question?Steve Pryor (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
It is only based on my puzzled observations on Wiki pages. If you find this tricky, then I have simplified it to; Why does Glareola not have an article on the Wiki? Snowman (talk) 15:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
That is a good question. I found the other question somewhat tricky because the whole entry seemed to want to emphasize birds sharing the common name of Pratincole. In any case, I knew what you meant, but sometimes going through all of these citations is very tedious, and anything that breaks the monotony and allows a bit of levity is welcome.Steve Pryor (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I have listed Glareola as a missing genus on the Bird talk page. Snowman (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Queries from zoonomen
  • Rallicula (f.) Schlegel) 1871 Nederl.Tijdschr.Dierk. 4 p.55 - listed on zoonomen with one round bracket. Snowman (talk) 09:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Typographical error. Schlegel is the first-namer of the genus. Zoonomen should eliminate the one parenthesis.Steve Pryor (talk) 13:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Error not transcribed to the Wiki, as I had edited it out on the list that I scraped from zoonomen. There was another one like this on the Passerine list. Snowman (talk) 11:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, they are genera. However, in my view having read the justificatory paper, in the view of the NACC, and in the view of the SACC, this is old taxonomy. Zoonomen is closely aligned as to its taxonomy with that of the IOC, and they both accept the viewpoint of: Steve Pryor (talk) 13:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Chlidonias (Constantine Samuel Rafinesque-Schmaltz or Constantine Samuel Rafinesque). Lymnocryptes & Ardeola H or F Boir, Threskiornis G or J Gray. Snowman (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

For the purposes of generic citations, simply Rafinesque (not Rafinesque-Smaltz). For the purposes of general culture, he is known by both forms.Steve Pryor (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Lymnocryptes - Friedrich Boie.Steve Pryor (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Ardeola - Friedrich.Steve Pryor (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Threskiornis - G.R. Gray.Steve Pryor (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. All were corrected with the initial run of the script through this batch. Snowman (talk) 11:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Elseyornis Habroptila Sypheotides Pithecophaga Coragyps Microcarbo Snowman (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Elseyornis date is correct; Habroptila, I found the same mention of a certain Duncan moving the date from 1860 to 1861. Sypheotides is correct. Pithecophaga, likewise correct. Coragyps checks out.Microcarbo is good. I suspect that this stuff has been done, but double-checking never hurts.(talk) 15:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Names and dates

"Sternula (f.) Boie,F 1822 Isis 10,11 col.563 Nomenclature" on zoonomen; Morus Snowman (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Sternula checks out F. Boie, 1822. Peterson mentions that he includes it (the generic name that is) tentatively in the meantime, and waiting for Bridges et al to pronounce themselves on its appropriateness. This was five years ago. I have never heard anybody gainsaying the use of Sternula sensu Boie during these five years.Steve Pryor (talk) 16:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Morus Vieillot, 1816 is correct.Steve Pryor (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Cariama Torgos Trigonoceps Snowman (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

For all three, if there were discrepancies, they have been taken care of and are now all correct.Steve Pryor (talk) 16:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

bird orders 29 to end

Queries with Wiki

Pharomachrus - has two genena and two genus authorities in tabobox.

Here I don't need books to answer. It all refers to the common name Quetzal. In that sense there are two genera that use this common name - Euptilotis is called the Eared Quetzal. This seems to be analogous to the Pratincole situation. In this case, it seems to be lacking a genus page for Pharomachrus. There is a page for "Eared Quetzal", but not a genus page for Euptilotis.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Missing genus listed on WP Bird talk page. Snowman (talk) 11:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Queries with zoonomen

Strigiformes - headed saying 29 genera, but only 28 on the list. Gymnoglaux Cabanis 1855 and Saurothera Vieillot 1816 are hidden text, so might be an old classification of genera. Snowman (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Saurothera? For me it is a Cuckoo. Will have to check if the name has ever been associated to Strigiformes.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Forget Saurothera! Here is a list of currently recognized Strigiformes. If there is a discrepancy in the number then look at the extinct taxa, or look and see if Mimizuku is still being listed (recently submerged in genus Otus).


Tytonidae – 2 genera

Tyto Phodilus

Strigidae – 24 extant genera; 2 extinct genera

Otus Megascops Pyrroglaux Gymnoglaux Ptilopsis Bubo Ketupa Scotopelia Strix Jubula Lophostrix Pulsatrix Surnia Glaucidium Xenoglaux Micrathene Athene Heteroglaux Aegolius Ninox Uroglaux Pseudoscops Nesasio Asio

†Mascarenotus †SceloglauxSteve Pryor (talk) 14:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

zoonomen has all of the extant ones including, but only one of the extinct ones. Zoonomen also has Mimizuku and Sceloglaux, but not Mascarenotus. Zoonomen includes Gymnoglaux and Saurothera, but these are in hidden text and are not shown on the rendered page. I think this is a total of 28, but the number at the top of the zoonomen page is 29. Snowman (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
For me, they just counted wrong. If somehow Saurothera is being counted in the 29, then that is the root of the problem - it isn't an Owl. However, I seem to remember something about Gymnoglaux - will have to look - something about the generic name being invalid - I seem to recall a name Margarobyas, but that was some time ago. I will check and find the present taxonomic position of Gymnoglaux (in fact, Gymnoglaux is not listed on zoonomen, it has been substituted for with the generic name Margarobyas), Heteroglaux (sometimes submerged in Athene), and Ketupu (by some put in Bubo).Steve Pryor (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
OK. He has 28 genera, 27 of them are extant. I have 28 genera, 26 of them are extant. The only reason that he has one more extant genus than I do is that he has not submerged Mimizuku in Otus. The total is right. By his taxonomy he has 28 listed genera. The 29 that he has at the top of the group can only be a mistake in his count. Saurothera is a genus in Cuculidae. If somehow that has entered into his count for Strigidae, then it is likely the reason that he has one more, i.e., the 29.Steve Pryor (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Colaptes, Semnornis, Notharchus, Ceryle, Calliphlox, Patagona, Chrysolampis, Anthracothorax, Athene, Glaucidium


Eumomota, Coracias, Eulidia, Coeligena, Surnia, Ptilopsis, Bubo, Eudynamys

Name and date

Ispidina, Gymnoglaux


Lots of brackets corrected as on zoonomen. (I think there is misunderstanding of what these mean on the Wiki) Snowman (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Please explain.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
There are extremely few authors of genera on zoonomen that are listed with round brackets around them. However, on the Wiki they have been quite frequent. I presume that editors have been adding brackets. I think that zoonomen is reliable on round brackets, so I have not listed anything here for you to double check. Snowman (talk) 11:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Graphic Designer Barnstar Hires.png The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
The graphics on your userpage look great! 1966batfan (talk) 23:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Ibis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Extinct birds (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Common Blackbird

Thanks, I've actually reverted to the last fully reffed version, and I'll leave a message on the good faith ISP's talk explaining what I've done. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

Christmas lights - 1.jpg

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC).


I have temporarily undone most of your recent edits. Please see my apologies and explanation on Talk:Pneumothorax. Thanks. JFW | T@lk 19:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I note that the article has been reverted back to a version that is not entirely according to MEDMOS. My re-organisation yesterday may have been too much, and I can see some reasons why the reorganisation was reverted; however, I think some attempt should have been made to restore copy-editing and a new image that I added to the page. I have listed problems with article organisation in the FAC discussion. I trust that the editors of the article will be able to reorganise the page according to MEDMOS.Snowman (talk) 12:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Pneumothorax again

Hi Snowmanradio, I have tried to reorganise the article a little bit, and was wondering if you could give it another look and see whether this is a bit better. JFW | T@lk 21:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I have noted your recent points. Despite my request you have not responded to my request in the previous message.
Generally, I would like to know if you think this article is going to achieve FA status. If you don't think so, I will focus on addressing the points made by other editors. JFW | T@lk 20:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I note that you have re-organised the "Prevention" and "Treatment" section. I generally comment on the progress of an FAC on the FAC discussion page. I am not ready to make a comment and sometimes I do not make an overall comment. Snowman (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect ID


It is a Greater Coucal - it is also linked to the species page.Steve Pryor (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

User talk:

Why are you warning an IP that hasn't edited in almost two and a half years? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. It is an old missed vand. I want it listed that someone was adding false information, to alert others about other possible falsifications. Snowman (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I have just added the date when the missed vand was added on the IP users talk page. Snowman (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Presumably sometime before their last edit, two and a half years ago. In my experience, the most likely reasons for such a sudden halt is that they've given up altogether or switched to a different IP address. There's is no point warning somebody for something they did such a long time ago. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:04, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I have said it is to alert current editors that there may be other falsification made some time ago. Have you got anything better to do? Snowman (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Line out tags?

Hi Snow,

I would have just lined out my mistake, but I don't know what tags must be used.Steve Pryor (talk) 10:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: Forget this question. I went into edit mode and saw how you lined it out. Now, if I can just remember it the next time I need it...Steve Pryor (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Historic Coventry edit-a-thon at Herbert Art Gallery and Museum, Coventry

Historic Coventry Edit-a-thon - You are invited!
Herbert Backstage Pass cmglee 67.jpg
The Herbert Art Gallery and Museum is hosting an edit-a-thon on Saturday 31 March 2012. 15 Wikimedians will have to learn more about "historic Coventry". The day will centre upon editing, however and we aim to improve the coverage of Coventry's illustrious history on Wikimedia projects. For more information and to sign up, see the event page. We hope you'll join us! Rock drum Ba-dumCrash 16:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


Living Desert Zoo and Gardens State Park photos

I've been working on the Living Desert Zoo and Gardens State Park, and checking on Commons I found two files uploaded by you from Flickr that are categorized as "Living Desert Zoo and Gardens State Park", with file names that match, but when I go to the originals on Flickr they says they are from the Santa Fe Zoo (and there are a bunch more in the series titled New Mexico winter 2009). The files are here (Flickr POR_2093) and here (Flickr POR_1949). The problem is, as far as I know there is no "Santa Fe Zoo" in New Mexico. There is the Santa Fe College Teaching Zoo in Florida, and the Santa Fe Zoo in Medellin, Columbia, and when I search for "Santa Fe Zoo" in Flickr, some of the photos that show up can be identified with each of these, but some (including the series in question) claim they are from New Mexico. According to this site (I don't know how accurate it is), the only polar bears in New Mexico are in Albuquerque (that would be the Rio Grande Zoo). I'm not sure of the best way to handle this. Suggestions are welcome. Don Lammers (talk) 14:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

It is almost certainly Rio Grande Zoo; this polar bear is on the same rock structure. I have moved the two files. Snowman (talk) 17:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think you are correct. Thanks. Don Lammers (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Well spotted. I do not know why I originally put Living Desert Zoo. I wonder if the flickr user has changed his or her mind and changed the flickr captioning or if I had make a mistake. I note that the flickr photographer has put "forget where exactly" in the captioning of this image taken on 30 December 2009 in his "New Mexico Winter 2009" set. Snowman (talk) 09:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I missed the "forgot where exactly". Yes, the captioning could easily have been changed since the upload. I only looked because it seemed unlikely that a desert garden state park would have a polar bear. I probably would have taken it at face value if it was just the cockatiels, since everyone seems to have them now. Don Lammers (talk) 12:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10

Hi. When you recently edited John Bailey Shelton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trauma (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Now fixed by using a piped wikilink. Snowman (talk) 12:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

  • Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
    • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
    • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
  • The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
  • To activate your account: 1) Go to; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
  • If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
  • HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
  • Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 21:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18

Hi. When you recently edited Western Jackdaw, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Iris (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed it. Snowman (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)