User talk:Tannin/030430
Archived at User_talk:Tannin/030301 & User_talk:Tannin/030407
despite what Google told me, it is Sibley and Ahlquist, not Alquist. I've moved page and linksjimfbleak 08:39 Apr 8, 2003 (UTC)
The Ostrich is from the USFWS website. The Food and Wildlife Service has a lot of public domain images (48 pages with search Bird). Some are poor, and most are of course American, but there are such unexpected species as red-billed hornbill there.
I,m trying at present to do an introductory page for each order that I have some knowledge of, recently did cuckoos and sandgrouse. I'm also trying to improve some of the weaker articles, but there's so much to do.... I've also redirected megapode to mound-builders]].jimfbleak
Thanks for the praise Tan - i do what i can - your a top bloke yourself mate
PMelvilleAustin 13:38 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)
Hi! Tony, from Adrian. I'm interested to see your re-positioning of the Lancaster pic. There was a bit of discussion a few weeks ago on a similar topic (copied below). Unfortunately I didn't phrase my question very well at that time, and should have asked where the first pic on a page should be put.
I've standardised on the right for the first (or only) pic because otherwise the smooth flow of the left margin is disrupted and, as we read from right to left, I believe the left margin should be the one that is left unbroken. In other words, the eye is happily reading down the article and suddenly has to step right to carry on reading then step left, after the picture has gone by, to return to the left margin. I think this consideration probably over-rules the "lead-out" problem you mention.
Can I return the article to the righthand positioning?
I've copied the discussion below (from the Village Pump) .....
Hi! A question for everyone ..... does it look best, if an article has two pictures, to put them:
One on the right and one on the left - see Airbus A380
Both left - see Amber
Both right - see Avro Vulcan
I just can't decide.
Thanks -- Adrian Pingstone 09:41 Mar 29, 2003 (UTC)
- IMO, one on the right and one on the left. The variation gives more interest to the layout -- sannse 09:45 Mar 29, 2003 (UTC)
- I agree. But just make sure they are not too close to each other -- otherwise they will sqeeze the text between them at lower resolution screens. --mav
Best Wishes -- Adrian Pingstone 08:20 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)
On the whole, Adrian, I agree with Sannse & Mav. Variety, balance, not too close together - the standard rules of good sense. In general, I prefer that the first picture be on the right. No special reason for that, just that it usually seems to "feel right" that way. But the Lancaster picture seems better on the left to me, simply because when on the right it leads the eye out of the page into empty space, which is bad layout. But your point is valid too, and it's no big deal either way. (With decent sized pictures - say 400 or 500px - the jagged left margin problem is reduced, because there are more lines of text in eact allignment. But that's another issue!) If you think the Lancaster is better on the right, go right ahead and change it back. You, after all, are the Main Man when it comes to aircaft pictures. :) Tannin
- Tony, I've had another look at Avro Lancaster and have changed my mind completely. I understand your point now, you are saying that the white background to the picture and/or the direction the Lancaster is flying in makes the page look wrong. I have just "seen the light" and will certainly leave it as you put it. Sometime soon I'll go through all my other pics and see if any need moving on those grounds. Thanks for your help.
I have just updated my User Page, you might enjoy looking at .....
- KC-135 Stratotanker F-117 Nighthawk SR-71 Blackbird E-8 Joint STARS Thunderbirds (squadron) Aircraft of the RAAF List of airlines Royal Jordanian American Airlines Tarom Aircraft spotting Bristol Blenheim B-25 Mitchell Avro Lancaster Antonov Auster
- --Adrian Pingstone 10:34 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)
I pay an annual fee to my ISP for unlimited access with no phone charge. It's pretty standard for heavy users in the UK, I think. The main difficulty I have is the frequent access problems to the Wikipedia. I'm still working through some of the non-passerine orders with an introductory page, but I'm tending to do the little easy ones first, like tinamous, fulmars and tropicbirds.
Groups like the tinamous are interesting, with zero personal knowledge, and not much on the Internet. I must get out and do some real birding soon!jimfbleak
I've done Shearwaters now. The Manx-type shearwaters are a bit of a problem. I obviously know that mauretanicus and yelkouan are now split from Manx, but I would welcome any input on the current status of Fluttering and Hutton'c s/w. Are these still races of Manx, or are they split? Thanks, jimfbleak
Fry etc., ?Kingfishers, Bee-eaters and Rollers of the world? (1992), which I have, is probably the most up-to-date on taxonomy. They say the latter two groups and the Chloroceryle kingfishers are straightforward, but the rest are contentious. It?s even difficult to decide on the boundaries of Alcedo and Ceyx. They do accept three kingfisher families.
However, they put African dwarf in Ceyx, and that?s probably as authoritative as we will get. They list dwarf as Ceyx (Ispidina) lecontei and Pygmy as Ceyx (Ispidina) pictus, so presumably there is still argument about the genus, but they don?t appear to use Myioceyx, although I have a much older book that does. It?s difficult to see how to improve on what you?ve put for this.
They use ?River Kingfisher? for Alcedo atthis, but in Europe its not often refered to as such, I'll point to European kingfisher. jimfbleak 06:21 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)
I'll do something about the Ceyx diambiguation page, but not now, 'cos I'm going birding!jimfbleak
I've been out! First Osprey, Sand Martin of the spring, and a nice drake Ring-necked Duck. This yankee is a rare but regular visitor to the UK, and this time of year is good for other lost American ducks as they head back north. There are two or three each of American Wigeon and Lesser Scaup scattered around the Uk at present. Liked the project, you'll no doubt be surprised that I've signed up!jimfbleak 13:07 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)
Sibley checklist very useful-I didn't know it existed on the web. I have a World checklist book, but it's from 1980, so not exactly cutting edge. Although Sibley can't be taken as gospel, at least it's more recent, and consensus is not always easy to come by (African Dwarf Kingfisher!)jimfbleak 05:59 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)
I added group names, not sure if the links to the groups were a good idea.jimfbleak
I Tannin I've seen your edit on Straight engine. In Inline engine Maury Markowitz defined an inline engine as being well... anything else than radial. As I'm not a native English speaker I'm unsure who's right. Ericd 14:34 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)
And your order looks strange to me! I took the list of birds from a 1980 world checklist. I can't comment on the exclusively southern groups, but the order of paleoarctic groups remains the same in the "Birds of the Western paleoarctic", the BOU and most European lists.
The revised order is Sibley/AOU? again. I'm not happy with the deletion of Turdidae. Even Sibley's North American field guide keeps that family. taxonomy is a mess!jimfbleak 08:39 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)
I think that there is some positive stuff from Sibley et al, for example the clarification of the albatrosses, and the placement of the Galloanseri as basal neognathes, but I think it's to early to go all out for his arrangement when its only been almost fully accepted by the AOU. There has been some criticism of the DNA work, and Sibley himself did the Galloanseri work because several previous studies had identified the passerines as basal neognathes, which is improbable to say the least!
I aslo read a criticism of Sibley's mammal work, which claimed that, despite what Sibley claimed, Humans, chimps and bonobos could not be separated.
Splitting some of the more implausible orders, like taking hummingbirds away from the swifts and rails from cranes makes sense, but putting everything else(virtually) into Ciconiiformes seems unhelpful.
Until the new system is adopted by more major ornithogical bodies and books covering relevant orders, I think it's premature for us to be pace-setters in this, although I accept that's no real answer. Turdidae seems to be accepted by Sibley anyway, so I'm not sure what the rationale for lumping that is.jimfbleak 11:21 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)
The BOU site is [1], but in terms of a list the Rarities committee site at [2] might be better.
There is a two volume concise BWP at about GBP50 which is even better value. Although you obviously lose material such as sonograms, this version retains the illustrations, the essential bits on ID, distributions and basics of behaviour, food, sub-species etc.
You will appreciate that a fair number of Nearctic and Eastern Palearctic species are also included because of vagrancy to the region.
Ah, you see the Pope is making so many saints these days he has no place for her. He can promise her a window for canonisation between 10.05 and 10.17am on the 24th of April 2008, make her the Patron Saint of bulldozer drivers. STÓD/ÉÍRE 04:45 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)
Please see talk for History of the United Kingdom.
Tannin, re St. Rachel of the Bulldozer see what I wrote on Zoe's page. Ooooh they won't like it!!! STÓD/ÉÍRE 05:40 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)
That wasn't so hard, was it? :) -- Tim Starling 23:21 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)
Ok. Is Olga Bityercockoff Adam or Michael? Either way, I suppose we should revert. STÓD/ÉÍRE 00:47 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
Oh look. I see you too got an ignorant diatribe from the user-formerly-known-as-Blackwidow!!! What did wiki ever do to attract such nutters? First it was Adam and his family of Trolls. Then the Many Faces of Michael. Now it is the DW fan club, third rate arrogant mediocrities with all the charm of Saddam Hussein on a bad hair day. I put my threat (yup, got one too!) and a different one - even naming a law firm that would take him to court!!! - that Montrealais got. on the w-list, the annoying users page and Jimbo's page. Which means that the moment Jimbo or other of the powers that be see them, 'Olga' will be flushed down the banning toilet where she belongs, so that 'she' can go off and play with her 'pal' (or alternative personality) DW for as long as she likes. ÉÍREman 03:29 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
I knew I shouldn't have meddled in matters Oz! Apologies jimfbleak
I noticed a few times some problems with how you refer to clerical titles, particularly to do with cardinals. I have put a suggestion on the naming conventions (names and titles) talk page. I would value your suggestions or observations. ÉÍREman 23:12 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
hwh heh. It is so much fun writing snotty messages to Olga. (Why when I say that name do I normally think of a twenty-one stone Romanian shotputter with a body like a russian tank but not as sexy?) Did you see what I wrote to Olga yet? A big sarcastic. Heh heh. ÉÍREman 06:32 Apr 17, 2003 (UTC)
I'm adding Tanninboxes to families where I've written the article but no box, eg Gull, Skua New World vulture. Others I'll do as and when. As usual I won't stick to this, and I'll write more interesting bits like Golden oriole instead. I'll do nightjar within the next 24/48/72 hours. jimfbleak 05:41 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)
I am trying to sort out the existing articles swan, goose, duck and Anatidae. All of these have very incomplete lists of tribes and genera. Before I do much more on these, I would like views on the groups to see if we can reach a consensus.
Swan is probably OK Goose what do we do about the subfamily Tadorninae, some of which are called geese (Egyptian goose, Pygmy goose), and some ducks (Comb duck, Pink-eared duck)? Is Snow Goose in genus Chen (Sibley) or Anser (Wildfowl of the World, BOU).? To keep Anatidae manageable when the many other groups have been added, I’m tempted to just put Subfamilies and tribes and link from these. However, that still leaves Duck with a long list of genera, and the same problem as with goose in the case of the non-Anatinae ducks, like Comb duck, Pink-eared duck.
Isn’t it interesting that the ducks, a large, well-known and colourful group, appears not to have a single species account, whereas the Corvus crows have 14 (American crow is the latest addition). jimfbleak 06:00 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)
PS I've done nightjar!
You moved my Tea Bag article to Tea bag just before I did (typo). Nothing links to Tea Bag, so should we have it deleted? User:Cgs
Tannin, I've added a complete(?) list of species to KT's cormorant article. Could you check that the soutern species have correct names please. jimfbleak
Hi Tannin!
Just to let you know I've added an extra pic to the Roulettes article. When I'd inserted it I noticed that yours was a different style of caption so I hope it's OK that I've modified it to look like my style.
Adrian Pingstone 19:25 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)
Tannin, I am glad to see you assert yourself on the China talk page. I posted the following on AxelBoldt's talk page, but want to share it with you as well. Even when we have disagreed, I have always respected your contributions and edits. I am also writing to you because you have been active in Wikipedia for a long time. As I am sure you know, I have been in an edit war with JTDIRL and 172 on the China page, and I think there is both a need for some intervention, and an intervention that is not based on any argument about China, but rather about Wikipedia conventions, especially NPOV and naming conventions. I wrote to Mav who made a very brief and in my opinion constructive comment on the talk page a couple of days ago, although nothing has come of it. As I said, Ihave also posted this on Axel's page, because I think what is most needed now is some explicit discussion of Wikipedia conventions.
To fully grasp the debate behind the edit war you would have to read a lot. Minimally, I would suggest reading the entire Talk: China (Archive 3) and Talk: China pages (which I know is a lot to ask of someone who may not be so interested. As a party to the dispute and biased, I don't want to misrepresent it, but I will try to sum it up.
The question is, how to identify the Chinese (specifically, PRC) state. The article identified the state as communist. I checked the Chinese Constitution which states that it is a socialist state; an official Chinese website states that it is not a communist state. JTDIRL and 172 responded that all political scientists identify China as a communist state and that we should go by what Western scholars do. I talked to a few colleagues of mine -- a sociologist, two anthropologitsts, and a political scientist. They told me that many political scientists used to label China a communist state but that they are moving away from that designation, considering it inaccurate and meaningless; that many political scientists and most other scholars identify China as a socialist state, although some qualify it as "late" or "post" socialist. Now JTDIRL claims that it doesn't matter what political scientists say, that what ought to be presented is a "formal encyclopædic definition."
Now, I never heard of this phrase and doubt that it should be the basis of our deciding how to identify any state, as what we are trying to do is, arguably, devise a formal encyclopedic definition. I think he means we should call it a communist state because other encyclopedias do. I still think we ought to call it something that reflects the current state of scholarship.
But I hope you can see why I think this is a matter of clarifying general wikipedia conventions or norms, and not just a debate over China. And I hope you understand why I have turned to you.
I am not asking anyone to say "SLR is right and JTDIRL is wrong." I am asking the community, such as it is, to discuss the conventions and clarify them as they may apply to the case.
If you do not feel comfortable doing this, but understand why I bring it up, could you post this on the listserve for discussion? Either way, I appreciate your reading this far! Slrubenstein
Hi Tannin, re China (that nightmare of a page!) I am not calling China communist. I am calling it a communist state which is a specific political science term for a specific type of governmental system, which is explained in a link. Whatever way people describe the political system in China, its governmental system is universally described by political scientists as communist state, which has specific meanings relating to the system of government. That is explained to students in the first minute of the first lecture of a first year university course on the politics of China. However instead of understanding that it is a definitionary term for governance, not a statement regarding a political system, certain people on the page have spent days misunderstanding every attempt by me and by 172 to explain to them that it is a specific political science term with a specific meaning that is used universally to describe China's system of government, explicitly explained in link for those who don't know what it is. Having ignored a factual explanation of the reasons, a couple of people then go ahead and produce add-ons to the article that would make wiki a laughing stock (the latest contribution equated 'nation' with 'government', which is indicative of the standard of knowledge of some on the page!). Or else they remove the explanatory link, then say no-one knows what it means; that is the reason the link is there for!!! Now, the same people are falling out with themselves and reverting each other, adding in 'nation' (which is NEVER used as a definitionary term when defining a governmental system for the obvious reason that it has nothing to go with systems of government), changing it to socialist state, or twisting a paragraph defining a governmental system so it talks about the political system.
It is like that nutter Daeron over on Australia who kept trying to remove the commonly used definitionary term for the system of governance, Constitutional Monarchy and replacing it with a reference based on the political system, ignorant of the fact that we weren't talking about the political term in that article, we were talking of formal internationally recognised definitions of government. That is all that is being talked about on China. Not whether China is communist/post communist/neo-communist/socialist, etc but simply the standard political science definition of the governmental structures of the state, which you can read at Communist state. There are a limited number of formal definitions used by encyclopædias in categorising types of governmental systems. The only one that comes anyway near is communist state, for reasons you can see if you read the communist state page.
Dealing with this nonsense for days on end, I can understand why so many people get fed up to the teeth of wiki and quit.
PS: re what Sirub said, namely The question is, how to identify the Chinese (specifically, PRC) state. That sums up the problem. We are not talking about how to identity the PROC state. We are taking about how to categorise it governmentally. It isn't a liberal democracy, it isn't a constitutional monarchy, it isn't a western style republic, it isn't an absolute monarchy etc etc etc. People call it different things when talking about the political system. All 172 and I are trying to do is state what is the generally used description of the governmental system. The only generally used is communist state. Note, not communist. Communist state for reasons explained in the link. It is this sort of intellectual incoherence and amateurism that gives wiki a bad name. ÉÍREman 03:45 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)
Were you referring to the appearance of the latest of the Children of Lir, "Shino Baku? Of f*@&ing hell!!! Can we stop banning him and just shoot him this time??? ÉÍREman 06:33 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)
Jtdirl|ÉÍREman has a really good idea. 172
Well, we apparently have not any list of this. But I was planning to try to define properly all these terms one day. Hell, since I put some stuff in the conservation article in past october. Hum. Then I thought there were several classifications, and we had to be clear on this (which system was the most widely used, or the best, dunno). I'll look later. These are absolutely required. There is so much to do. It would also be nice to settle a proper soil classification, and a proper climate classification. And an atlas. When all the elements of the system are described, we can start analysing them. gloups. Life work user:anthere
Hi Tannin,
I like your Fawn_Hopping_Mouse page. It looks fine. I especially like the use of Eutheria as a taxonomic category, rather than Placentalia. This has much to do with my interest in Mesozoic mammals. Seeing as the earliest known placental, (Eomaia), presumably had no use for a placenta, Eutheria makes more sense to me.
Cheers,
Trevor Dykes
Hi tannin. HELP! We need you help over on Communist state. The article is about a political science definition of a system of government called Communist state. It discusses the concept of state and government that exists in communist systems. It is not about communism. One person, Fred Bauder, won't accept that and instead adds in stuff that belongs if anywhere on a page on communism, including such issues as concentration camps, liquidations, etc. No amount of pointing this out seems to get through to Bauder. No amount of revertions seem to work. He constantly reverts to his Donald Rumsfeld style analysis of communism which belongs on a page of communism if anywhere (others disagree as to whether it is too POV even for there). But it has nothing to do with the page on Communist state, but he continually reverts the page to add in his anti-communist theories. At this stage his continued vandalism is more than annoying. I have already reported his behaviour on the annoying users and edit wars page. If you have the power, maybe you could protect the page. There is one version accepted by everyone but Bauder, worked on by everyone but Bauder and viewed as NPOV by everyone but Bauder. Then there is his POV version. ÉÍREman 22:19 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC) (PS: I expect when I leave this page I will find that he will have reinstated his POV rant for at least the fourth time in the last hour.)
I saw you comments on ÉÍREman's talk page. Please don't leave Wikipedia. I'm sure that many people (including myself) would be willing to keep an eye on your contributions so that the integrity's protected from uninformed, opinionated editors in order to keep you from leaving the site.
If you want, a non-US perspective is needed for neoconservatism (United States), on which I've been working lately. Slrubenstein, G-man, and I have also been working on History of the Soviet Union constructively, until Slrubenstein and I become distracted over the "Communist state" controversy, but your presence would be highly helpful there.
Thanks Tannin. I know exactly where you are coming from. I am driven mad by people who know a little but are confused jumping into areas where I know a lot and totally changing the meaning, the spelling, the context and turning an article that I was happy with (and which when I showed it to experts said it was of first class honour standard) into something that was in exam terms barely passable. I am particularly infuriated by our crazy capitalisation rules, which seem amateurish and absurd, with things that must be capitalised being put in lower case. I have begun to be rather dogmatic about facts lately, so fed up am I by mediocrity. I think Mav is rather pissed off with me for not abandoning debates and saying 'ok Have it your way', when a row breaks out and a couple of people insist on using wrong information, wrong context, wrong interpretation. Usually I am at absolute pussycat but when I see 100% crap being accepted instead of accuracy (when the facts are 100% clear) I have blown up on wiki in a way I normally don't do in real life. (The China article was a classic example, where 172 and myself repeated ad nausaum we were talking about the formal state definition, not the political culture, and others would jump in, miss the point, change the 'facts'. After repeating endlessly the distinction we were trying to make and having no-one else grasp it no matter how we tried to explain it, I think I became rather rude, which is totally unlike me but an indication of my frustration.
I have been told that it could be because I have a couple of degrees and got a couple of first class honours that I have learned to see issues and distinctions clearly, and know when 'x' means 'x' not 'y'. That probably sounds very big headed, and it is not intended to be. It is just that my academic training has taught me to see where facts are sacrosanct, where facts are disputed and where clarity is needed. But some contributors don't understand that clarity and see its importance. So they interpret things like Communist state as meaning something it does not, whereas to me it 100% obvious. I was annoyed last night to find for example pages on devolution and federation that completely missed the basic difference. (If written in an exam, the pages as written might just scape 40%!) How in devolution a central parliament grants through legislation regional government, whose powers and functions can be broadened, weakened or indeed can be completely abolished at the whim of the central parliament. In federation, regional governments have a constitutionally guaranteed status and role in a structured multi-layered system of government, and so cannot be unilaterally abolished. With that in, the article becomes a proper encyclopædic article on the topic. With that left out, it is mediocre rubbish. I have lately devoted a lot of time to doing proper encyclopædic articles on topics that aren't likely to be of general interest to wikipedians. Ironically, for a seriously lapsed catholic, a lot of these have been on Roman Catholic topics that given my background I know something about and because of my training I can research properly, like Papal Tiara, Sacred Heart, Blessed Virgin Mary, Novus Ordo, Tridentine Mass, papal biographies, etc. My ex-partner finds it very funny that I of all people am writing on religion. He is forever quipping "as they say, once a catholic. Always a catholic!!!" I have lost the count of the number of times I have totally given up on wiki, usually with the expression fuck it. I don't care anymore." But invariably I have come back, so far at least. But some day until it changes its standards I am going to say that one night and not come back, though I will probably pine for it a little. (A lot!!!) So hang in there mate. People like us who want to get things right and not amateurish will keep fighting the battle. And the Fred Bauders of this world, (and the capitalisation-nazis) better look out. Things we write are going to be accurate whether they like it or not!. :-)
Right on, Jtdirl|ÉÍREman! 172
Yes - please don't leave. I value you and your contributions even though you called me a Style Nazi before. All I want is for Wikipedia to be greater than the sum of its parts and that means that standards are important to maintain - otherwise Wikipedia looks like Geocities without the ads. But the standards we should use should be reasonably universal and geared toward a general audience (that's why we use common names and general rules of English grammar instead of names that only specialists know and grammar that specialists publications use). Other encyclopedias do this, as do dictionaries and textbooks. Yours in the wiki. --mav
Tannin, I've joined the mailing list and made my plea, but I'm afraid that Wiki standards tend to be the American ones of lowest common denominator. You would think with all these computer buffs that someone would be able to make the search/go box non-case specific.
I can't see why your solution of correct name>#redirect Wiki name is unacceptable, but I suspect that the random copyeditors don't even bother to check things like that. No single thing about Wiki is more annoying than this. An image of a Fox Sparrow appeared under sparrow, which although a mistake is a genuine contribution, and only needed moving to American sparrows. That's fine with me, but the pointless and time-wasting edit-wars over such trivial issues really get up my nose. How many bird articles have Mav, Zoe etc actually written? jimfbleak
- How many pages have you copyedited? I've copyedited many thousands and know a thing or two about English grammar Jim. That said, please read this. I'm willing to compromise. --mav
Amen to a compromise-and I'd not discovered the mailing list before jimfbleak
Hi Tannin,
The first observation was: "Trevor, I have a couple of questions. Well,
one question and a suggestion. First, is there a top-level article for
your mammals stuff? In other words, somewhere the reader can start at the beginning with the basics, which then leads on to the detailed stuff? And, also, that ties the individual entries together so as to provide an
overview?"
I haven't got a top-level article. I'm trying to tie the stuff in with what's
already around. However, virtually all the critters so far are members of Multituberculata. That's got some kind of an overview.
The next group's trickier. It involves derived non-mammalian Therapsida; ie. proto-mammals. These things make a mockery of Reptilia / Mammalia. The difficulty is, that I've been concentrating purely on the most mammal-like of them. I'll try to write some kind of summary, but it'll be full of strange words, and only partial.
It'll probably start with a fifty word version, and then plummet into paleospeak.
"Second, I think that we ought to do some copyediting here and there to bring the entries into wiki style. I'm not talking about making substantive changes to the content, just putting a final polish on the presentation. I'd have dived in and had a crack at one or two myself, but I don't know what to do with the full citations - e.g., "Eutheria Huxley, 1880". Wikipedia probably isn't the place to use that style, and yet I don't want to delete useful information. (In any case, I doubt that more than a handful of readers would know what the "Huxley, 1880" means.) What do you think is the best way of dealing with this?"
I'm trying to incorporate wiki styalization as I go along, but am somewhat hampered by a. complete ignorance and b. my strange specialization.
Whether information's useful naturally depends upon what someone's looking for. I suppose there's nothing wrong in writing "Eutheria, which was named by Huxley in 1880". That'd be correct and no information would be lost. It'd enhance accessibility on 'top-level' or 'middly-level' pages, (when there are such things). I suspect it would be less sensible on the species or family levels though.
Trevor Dykes 28.4.2003 _____________________________________________________________ Tannin - thanks for the welcome, and for the quokkas. Cheers David Stewart
I can't keep away. My main aim at the moment is to do the remaining family accounts for European groups, but in practice I've spent the early morning doing minor edits, and writing a basic species account for the lovely Pintail, so we now have three ducks. Unfortunately, I've actually got to do some work today, so this will probaly be my last edit until tomorrow. jimfbleak 06:44 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)
Looks good to me.Just to clarify, are we moving existing articles to upper case, or just making sure that that there is a redirect from the upper case version? I noticed House Sparrow change just when I wasthinking of doing it. jimfbleak 15:48 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for the info Tannin. Steve nova 16:34 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)