User talk:Tim Ross/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Jones College

I will unlink Jones College in the Florida article. I would note that Jones College has several campuses in Florida, and its name is simply Jones College. This will have to be fixed when some one writes an article for Jones College, but in any case, your fix, [[Jones College (not Mary Gibbs Jones College)]] was not a useful one. My solution would be to move the present Jones College to Mary Gibbs Jones College to avoid the collision. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 23:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I created a Jones College disambiguation page and moved Jones College to Jones College (Rice University) (after a foolish move to Jones College (Houston)), as other of Rice University colleges are done the same way. I've changed all links to the Florida college to Jones College (Jacksonville), which I'm sure that Dalbury will soon make into an article. ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 04:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Red Hills Horse Trials

Outstanding photo, Tim. Thanks for making the article better. Noles1984 15:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Much obliged for the compliment, Noles84.

Truncatella

You're quite welcome.  :) --EarthPerson 18:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Too Many Names

I'm starting work on a biographical article about a lady who, during her life, went by varied names, the spelling of which also varied. The total number of common versions is probably at least a dozen. These are too many names to put in the article itself to ensure that searchers will find it. Is there some easy way to include all the likely names under which one might search, without putting them in the body of the article? Thanks. Tim Ross 16:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you can create a redirect from each of the plausible search terms to the article itself. See Help:Redirect for full instructions, but as a quick guide, place

#REDIRECT [[page to redirect to]]

as the only text in each page you want to redirect from. Hope that helps! --ais523 16:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Help With Gallery Color

Can someone tell me how to add a background color (preferably a pale green) to a photo gallery? Thanks very much.

Try using this code:<nowiki>background:#f5fffa border:#cef2e0</nowiki> See if that works. --Goodshoped35110s 01:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, Goodshoped35110s. I'm not sure, though, where to insert the code. I tried it between the "gallery" statements as <background:#f5fffa border:#cef2e0>, and then within the "open gallery", as <gallery background:#f5fffa border:#cef2e0>. No luck. Tim Ross 10:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Mastodon skeleton

Hello Tim Ross, sorry for not coming back sooner. Originally I put the Mastodon image into all articles that did not have an image just to have some sort of illustration until a better replacement arrives. My idea was that the images should fit well until a replacement arrives and I originally found it in the article Mastodon.

Now, all the different types of mastodons are sort of confusing. I was not aware that the variations were so distinct that it would matter much, honestly. Do you think there is one image that might fit all or most? You were talking about an American Mastodon. I am really not an expert at all.

As you seem to be an expert on these prehistoric creatures, let me know what I can do to improve the situation, always nice to learn something. What I certainly cannot do is modify the sketch, that would make it all worse, as you can see. But if you say it might make a great (and correct) replacement, I'll replace it in the articles. Or do you think it makes more sense to remove them again? I'll gladly accept all help I can get, when it is about the mastodon skelton.

By the way, the images seem to be scattered but easily findable by clicking on the "What links here?"-link of the image.

Take care, doxTxob \ ^talk 22:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I put a list of the articles that I put the image in under your entry on my talk page. I did not include articles that had the old Mastodon image. That should help. doxTxob \ ^talk 22:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey again, I think I am getting behind some of the the prehistoric secret... Am I right that the mastodons in the photos you found are basically all the same kind of American Mastodon you mentioned? What about the color drawing (Mastodon_color.jpg) and the Adobe Photoshop image (BlankMastodon.jpg)? On the drawing it looks like it has no fur or coat at all, more like elephants today. On the Photoshop rendering it is furry. Which one is the better representation? It might be nice as a replacement for some of the articles.

If my above assumption is correct, the skeleton in the working sketch looks perfect to me as a replacement for most of the articles. Most of the time that is probably how they are found, anyway, giving the reader a good idea of how the fossile might have looked like. Do you think it is useful to crop the image and remove the letters and cut-off description completely, leaving just the skeleton? That would be similar to the style of image used in the other image and some of the text is pretty hard to read, especially at the top. So if Peale's working sketch is a good representation of the American Mastodon in your opinion, I'll gladly accept you offer to modify it as you think is appropriate. Thanks for that in advance!

What would be a good caption for the image? Can it just be called Mastodon, American Mastodon or is the specific latin name required? doxTxob \ ^talk 00:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It's good to hear from you, DoxTxob. In truth, I was an invertebrate paleontologist many years ago. This only give me rather limited expertise, I fear, in terms of old vertebrates, so you don't need to take my opinions with too much respect.

Simplified Peale Mastodon.

About your questions. Yes, I believe all of those images are Mammut sp. That means they're some species of mastodon, mostly, or even entirely M. americanum, the American Mastodon. Peale's version is definitely Mammut americanum. I, too, like both of those restorations, "Mastodon_color.jpg" and "BlankMastodon.jpg". The first one is, I think, the better image of the beast, but, as you note, has no visible hair. The second one certainly has hair, although it could pass for mink rather than elephant, but is otherwise too much like an Indian elephant. I would pick "Mastodon_color.jpg" as the best for most uses.

As promised, I've now uploaded a cleaned up version of Rembrandt Peale's mastodon skeleton: "SimplifiedPealeMastodon.jpg". It can probably be best titled "American Mastodon skeleton", or something of the sort. Let me know if you want me to make the image replacements, or if you would rather do it. Tim Ross 13:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello! Wow, that drawing looks great! That's a perfect illustration for all these articles. I heve seen that you have replaced the wrong image in the articles already. Thank you very much for that! Probably not a bad idea to have some extra eyes look over the article for appropriateness as well. I like the mastodon painting by Heinrich Harder better, too. Thanks a lot for your help! doxTxob \ ^talk 21:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

OK To Move Article From Another Version Of Wikipedia?

I am interested in moving/translating at least one article from the German language version of Wikipedia. This is a "most wanted" topic, and it seems a bit silly to write a whole new one. Is this allowed, approved, ethical (with full credit, of course)? Tim Ross 00:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. I used to spend a large part of my time doing just that. There's even various WikiProjects devotes to translating good articles from other languages. See for example WP:SPATRA. As an example, here is an article I translated from Spanish. It was a featured article there, and is now listed as a good article. One of the best ways to find good candidates for translation is to go to the category for articles that are featured in another language, For you, it would be Category:Wikipedia featured articles in other languages (German). Since there are many gaps, however, another way is to go to Wikipedia:Featured Articles, then click on the language you wish to translate from the interlanguage links on the left hand side of the screen. There may be articles there which have no equivalent here and haven't made it into the category. You definitely want to check out the link posted by Vassyana below and you also might be interested in WikiProject Echo. If you need any help with the translation (formatting help, converting references, that sort of thing; I do not speak German) please do not hesitate to drop me a line at my talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to check out Wikipedia:Translation. It's all about translating from other Wikipedias. :) Vassyana 00:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey again. Let me explain how versions work. Every page has an edit history accessible by clicking on the history tab at the top of the article (in German, "Versionen/Autoren"). Each date listed represents a discrete version of the page at a certain time. Clicking on the times listed takes you to that version. In order to get the hardcode for a prior version or a current version you need only find the URL (the webpage address) of the historical version. So, for example, if I wanted to get today's version of this page, I would click history, then click on the latest time listed, and then get the URL of that page, which is the hardcoded version. If, on the other hand I simply found the url of this page without going through the history function, it wouldn't have the url that contains the version ID.

In order to find the URL listing—well it depends on the browser one is using. Many have them automatically listed in an address bar at the top of the browser. But if that's not available (for instance in Internet Explorer) you can right click, choose properties from the drop down menu, and copy the address that is provided (this can also be done in IE by clicking on the file tab in the browser menu and choosing properties). So if you wanted to find find today's hardcoded address for de:Henry Nash Smith it would be http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Nash_Smith&oldid=25298203 as opposed to http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Nash_Smith, which just takes you to the current version no matter when you click the link. You can see the difference in the URL: the time coded version has an "oldid=number." So for that template, just find the URL of the version of the article you are translating, copy the number listed in the url after "oldid=" and place that in the template.--Fuhghettaboutit 13:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help!

Thanks for the help on the Rhinoceros Iguana article. That's also a great pic! Do you have any for the other Cyclura species?--Mike Searson 00:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm real glad you liked the rhino iguana photo, Mike. I have quite a few more photos of them from that one population, but they don't seem needed too badly in the article. My only other Cyclura picture is of a captive C. nubila caymanensis. I just uploaded that one. Tim Ross 10:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool! Are you sure it's a Caymanensis? Looks more like a Lewisi hybrid. Actually it looks identical to one that I have that's a three-way hybrid (Grand Cayman, Little Cayman and Cuban)! Still a great pic...thanks for uploading it.--Mike Searson 12:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that the I.d. is not clear! I'm a snail guy, myself, and have only modest knowledge of herps, so depended on the label on the Cyclura's pen at Hope Gardens in Jamaica. Please eject the photo from the caymenensis site, or add an appropriate warning about the identity to the caption -- whatever you think is appropriate. Tim Ross 18:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, those three species and subspecies do have contaminated gene pools (read the Blue iguana entry for a bit more info) it could very well be a pure Caymanensis and it is a good photo. I may edit it to show it as a possible hybrid, but won't delete it. Snails, huh? any chance on an article on Liguus fasciatus?--Mike Searson 18:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Really odd that you should ask about the tree snails, Mike! That's exactly what I'm at work on right now. I was quite surprised when I realized their lack of coverage in Wikipedia. I should have something out in about a month covering the whole genus, although I'm having some difficulty getting the quality lillustrations I'd like. Tim Ross 20:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow! I may shoot you an email...I have a bit of history with that species! I may have a pic or two somewhere also!--Mike Searson 21:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK (nom)

• ...that tree snails called Liguus from Florida and the Antilles are brightly coloured which could cause more varieties to become extinct? by Tim Ross

Should be there in 3-4 days (prob and prob minus picture) OK? ...oh and I see Cuba is in Antilles so I saved a word. Victuallers 14:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm most grateful, Victuallers, for the DYK nomination. In truth, I didn't know anyone had read the article! Thank you. Tim Ross 14:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 13 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Liguus, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Danny just uploaded this fantastic article to Veropedia here. If you know of any other articles that you think should be Verofied, please let me know! Cheers, Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 20:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm very honored to have the Liguus article selected for a DYK, as well as picked to be moved to Veropedia. Thank you very much! Tim Ross 13:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Too many "Ahl's"

{{helpme}}

Since I like to do biography work, I just went to the biography section of Wikipedia:Most_wanted_articles and down to the general biographies section. The most-wanted, by a wide margin, was Jonas Nicolaus Ahl, with 86 links. There is a problem here, though, which I don't know how to resolve. Jonas Nicolaus Ahl, probably a German, was a "naturalist' who worked around 1800, and is not at all well known. Ernst Ahl, however, was an expert on frogs and tropical fish during the early 1900s, and is much more widely recognized. Most, if not all of the links shown connecting to "Jonas Nicolaus Ahl" rightfully belong to "Ernst Ahl". I'm not sure how to correct this. Tim Ross 14:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an AWB user, and there may be a much faster and less tedious way to do it, but I'd go to the what-links-here page for Jonas Nicolaus Ahl and go through the list link by link. — Dorftrottel⁠ 14:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Tim. I do have AWB, which can get this job done a helluva lot faster that doing it by hand, so if you would be willing to compile a list of articles that need fixing on a user subpage of yours (say User:Tim Ross/Ahl links or something), I can go through and fix it ahl. ;-) I'm afraid if I did this on my own I wouldn't which links meant who. Let me know when you're ready, if you'd like me to do this. I'll remove the helpme for now, but feel free to put it back up if you need to. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

All done! Let me know if I messed anything up. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahl links

Links that are correct, going to Jonas Nicholaus Ahl:
Wikipedia:Most wanted articles
List of zoologists by author abbreviation
User talk:Tim Ross

ALL the others are wrong, and should go to Ernst Ahl.

Virgil Walter Ross (DYK nom)

Hi. I've nominated Virgil Walter Ross, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created on November 17, where you can improve it if you see fit. — Komusou ^talk @ 20:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow! I sure didn't expect that. Thanks very much, Komusou; I'm most grateful. (And, by the way, in spite of my user name, I have no connection with Virgil Ross. :-) Tim Ross·^talk 20:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 22 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Virgil Walter Ross, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5