User talk:Ucucha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:UcuchaBot)
Jump to: navigation, search

Leave a new message


I took the liberty of updating your script, to make use of mw.hook, instead of document ready, so that it will also work icw tools that don't reload the entire page, like JS page previewing, VE and the new wiki editor. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 21:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I won't be actively developing it any time soon, so feel free to move the script to a different location outside my user space or to make further fixes if it's still of interest to editors. Ucucha (talk) 03:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


(CC: TheDJ) Note that there's a bug in the current version that produces spurious forward link errors on preview pages. On preview, the wikipage.content event gets fired before the content is added to the DOM, hence operations on the DOM will fail (in particular, document.getElementById() will return nil). The fix is to use $content.find() instead, since the $content provided by mw.hook will be populated.

I've put a fixed version at User:Xover/HarvErrors.js that you can copy from if you like, and I'll probably try to maintain (fsvo) this version going forward if you don't feel like updating yours. --Xover (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

E Museo Lundii publication date[edit]

Dear Ucucha, I've seen you changed the date of publication of Herluf Winge's original description of Lundomys back to 1887. But the correct date is 1888. Most sources cite the first parts wrongly as 1887. This is probably due the fact that this is the third part of the first volume of E Museo Lundii, and it doesn't carry the date in the frontspice. In Biodiversity Library you can see that it was handwritten. The preceding part, Oluf Winge's "Fugle fra Knoglehuler i Brasilien" (part II of Volume 1) is dated 1888 in the same site (, although it also carry the wrong handwritten date of 1887 in one of the pages. You can see in this example (, from Statens Naturhistoriske Museum website, or consult "E Museo Lundii - Addendum" (by C. L. Hansen, 2012, published by Statens Naturhistoriske Museum), that E Museo Lundii was published from 1888 to 1915. I can provide more sources with the correct publicaton date if it is necessary.

Best regards Nascimentors (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation!
I'm still not really convinced though that your arguments outweigh the fact that the rodent literature universally (to my knowledge) uses 1887. Even the Mammals of South America, which is based on solid bibliographical research and cites Hansen (2012), gives the date for Winge as 1887. The PDF you cite is unconvincing to me since it doesn't discuss bibliography. The publication date of Oluf's bird volume is interesting, but it wouldn't be inconceivable for the different parts to have been published out of sequence, and I'm not sure the evidence that that volume was published in 1888 is strong.
I don't have access to Hansen's book myself; does it give an explicit discussion of the publication date of Winge's rodent volume? If so, I'd be OK with changing Lundomys back; we should also change the other species that Winge named, such as Juliomys anoblepas and Pseudoryzomys. Ucucha (talk) 03:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh, it's not actually true that the rodent literature universally cites 1887, since these papers use 1888:
  • Abravaya, J.P. and Matson, J.O. 1975. Notes on a Brazilian mouse, Blarinomys breviceps (Winge). Contributions in Science 270:1-8.
  • Emmons, L. and Vucetich, M.ía Guiomar. 1998. The identity of Winge's Lasiuromys villosus and the description of a new genus of echimyid rodent (Rodentia, Echimyidae). American Museum Novitates 3223:1-12.
Haven't found any discussion of the discrepancy in the literature though. Ucucha (talk) 03:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
It seems that the subdivisions of E Museo Lundii volumes were not supposed to circulate isolated, and this is why they bear no publication date in their frontspice. Some volumes in libraries then might have been added the wrong handwritten publication date and all subsequent works that used it as reference helped to disseminate. As far I know there is no discussion on literature about such discrepancy. Some works in paleornithology also cites Oluf's work wrongly too (even the publication name), and this might be the same reason, as the acess to such works was much harder in the past. I've made a montage with some reliable sources that mentions the 1888 date:
  • 1 – K. L. Hansen, 2012, p. 5;
  • 2 – k. L. Hansen, 2012, p. 42;
  • 3 – J. A. P. Drenkpol, 1927, p. 2 ("Um Benemerito do Brasil, o Dinamarquês Herluf Winge classificador dos achados paleontológicos de Lund." Boletim do Museu Nacional do Rio de Janeiro 3 [1]: 1-14 ) – Which says that in volume I, published in 1888, Herluf Winge describes the Rodents from Brazilian caves;
  • 4 – Frontspice of the first part of the first volume of E Museo Lundii (which is the only part that seems to be unavailable online), with 1888 date and including all the authors of the volume;
  • 5 – B. Holten & M. Sterll, 2012, p. 255 (from the book "P. W. Lund e as grutas com ossos em Lagoa Santa", Portuguese translation from the Danish original);
  • 6/7 – C. Paula Couto, 1950, p. 21-22 (from the book "Memórias da Paleontologia Brasileira", a review of Lund’s work, including biography of Herluf Winge);
  • 8 – A frontspice included (seems to from a secondary binding) in my own copy of Winge’s work about the rodents. Nascimentors (talk) 12:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Dear Ucucha, have you seen my reply here? Nascimentors (talk) 10:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Your listing is convincing to me. Let's change it to 1888. Sorry for missing your message for a while! Ucucha (talk) 07:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I just updated all articles about species named by Winge (1887) that I could find. Ucucha (talk) 07:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


I'm interested in using your script for highlighting duplicate links, I followed the installation instructions but don't seem to be seeing any affect. Any advice would be much appreciated, thanks! Gabriel syme (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

My mistake, it's working fine. Thanks for making a very useful tool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriel syme (talkcontribs) 20:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Ucucha. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Request for help at User talk:Nortonius[edit]

Your help is requested at User talk:Nortonius regarding your HarvErrors script. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)