This is an archive of past discussions about User:FunkMonk. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Flowering herbs and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 4#Flowering herbs until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
<a href="https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/fossil-sabertooth-smilodon-fatalis-canine-b7c34abb8a074c25b1d11fd9befe4fad?utm_medium=embed&utm_campaign=share-popup&utm_content=b7c34abb8a074c25b1d11fd9befe4fad" target="_blank" style="font-weight: bold; color: #1CAAD9;"> Fossil sabertooth (Smilodon fatalis) canine </a> by <a href="https://sketchfab.com/NHMLA?utm_medium=embed&utm_campaign=share-popup&utm_content=b7c34abb8a074c25b1d11fd9befe4fad" target="_blank" style="font-weight: bold; color: #1CAAD9;"> Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County </a> on <a href="https://sketchfab.com?utm_medium=embed&utm_campaign=share-popup&utm_content=b7c34abb8a074c25b1d11fd9befe4fad" target="_blank" style="font-weight: bold; color: #1CAAD9;">Sketchfab</a>
I coudn't insert it on wikipedia, please could you help me in inserting it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crater bug (talk • contribs) 15:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi, do you mean links for them? Because we can't use the models themselves, since they are copyrighted. FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi FunkMonk I have been reading articles of your creation for years and I just wanted to drop by to thank you for your quality work! Regards. Gus Chago (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi, very welcome, and I see you're a fellow half-Lebanese hehe. What kind of stuff do you work on here? FunkMonk (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
I mostly search for missing articles related to 19th century and early 20th century Lebanon and Egypt, and I I am interested in music, journalism, and TV articles. I love also fauna but I find editing such articles, and other scientific ones too daunting. You have quite a record, very impressive. Maybe one day I could write a good article lol Gachago (talk) 08:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Cool, yeah, if you ever need help trying to get into GA writing, feel free to ping me. It can be a pretty fun hobby. One way to start can also be to review, there is a Lebanon related article at WP:Featured Article Candidates now, perhaps worth taking a look, Royal necropolis of Byblos.FunkMonk (talk) 09:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi FunkMonk. I've recently taken chicken turtle to GA, and the reviewer there was very helpful in suggesting some additions and improvements to get the article towards FA standard. I saw your name listed at WP:FAM and just wondered whether you wouldn't mind having a read through too, see if you think there are any obvious omissions, errors, etc? This is the first zoology article I've written so would be good to have an experienced eye take a look. Cheers, BigDom (talk) 06:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Yep, sounds interesting! I'll have a look, and another thing you could try before taking it to FAC would be WP:peer review. If you start one of those, I can leave my comments there. FunkMonk (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages.
Hello! I would like to clarify why you reverted my edit in Heterodontosaurus article. As far as I can tell, the current consensus is that URLs are added when there is a legally available free version of an paper. For example, the first source used in the Heterodontosaurus article has the url and doi leading to the same page because the paper is free. Exactly the same situation is observed in many other cases. Therefore, I do not understand what is the reason for undoing the edit. HFoxii (talk) 15:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi, like I said in the edit summary, the DOI is already a link to the same URL, so it is redundant. Redundant URLs are routinely removed. All it does is add byte size, nothing else. You may be thinking of when the "official" version is paywalled, then it can make sense to add a free link to Researchgate or such. FunkMonk (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
It seemed to me that if the article is paid, then the url is not required, if it is free, then the url is required (and it doesn't matter if free version is "official" or not). Also, please see the first paper cited in the Heterodontosaurus article. If you follow the way you describe it (or as I understand you), the article should not have the url of this paper, since the doi leads to the same page. HFoxii (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
If the DOI leads to a paywalled URL, there is only need for an additional URL if there is a legal, free alternative. If the DOI leads to a free article, as in the case in question, there is no need for an additional URL. As for free reference 1 in the article, it does not have an extra URL, but it has the "free" parameter, which seems to make the title into a link. FunkMonk (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! In this case, I should have put the doi-access=free parameter instead of the url. HFoxii (talk) 04:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't actually know it created a link until now, so that's nice. FunkMonk (talk) 13:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi, yeah, I must say I'm not the best at these kinds of graphics, perhaps Mariomassone wants to have a look? I'll probably drop by with a review before long, though. FunkMonk (talk) 00:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi! I'm new to editing, as one can probably gather. It was recommended to me by User:Awkwafaba to submit Cerulean warbler for review, so there it was. Thank you so much for all the feedback and points for improvement. It is really meaningful! I hope to better "get the grips" of good practise through this process Sub31k (talk) 02:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
You're welcome, and I hope it will give you a nudge to make more nice articles like that! FunkMonk (talk) 07:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Kelenken you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chipmunkdavis -- Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kelenken, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marrow.
Thak you today for Lord Howe swamphen, "about yet another near-mythical, recently extinct bird. It has one of the most confusing taxonomic histories of any species I've written about, so I hope I've made it somewhat easy to understand... Most of what has ever been written about the bird is summarised in the article, and it includes the most important illustrations."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
The article Kelenken you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Kelenken for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chipmunkdavis -- Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi there.
I was just writing an article and wanted to know if there is something missing except for the References.
Please help me review it and let me know on my talk page if there is something am not getting right. Thank you Juniorside (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi, what article are we talking about? FunkMonk (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi FunkMonk, nice to meet you. I noticed that you speak Danish, and thought you might be willing to look over my draft for René Rechtman, as several of the included sources are in Danish. Rechtman is the founder and CEO of Moonbug Entertainment. I look forward to your feedback! Eloise Moonbug (talk) 11:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll have time to look tonight or tomorrow. Did you use Google translate or something so far for those sources? FunkMonk (talk) 13:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
FunkMonk, thank you! I look forward to your feedback. I did use Google translate and believe the information is accurate, but wanted to confirm. If you think the article is ready to be included, please feel free to move it to mainspace! Thanks again, Eloise Moonbug (talk) 11:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
The Danish sources seem to be in line with your article, Eloise Moonbug, they all mention the series Cocomelon as a particular success, so perhaps worth adding? FunkMonk (talk) 02:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
FunkMonk, thanks for looking this over! Would you mind moving the article to mainspace if you think it's ready to be included? I have a conflict of interest and am unable to do so without violating Wikipedia guidelines. As for CoComelon- I'd be happy for you to include a mention however you see fit. Thanks again for your help with this! Eloise Moonbug (talk) 11:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
I've now added a mention, but I must admit I have no experience with draft articles, so it's probably best to wait until someone who does comes around. FunkMonk (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
FunkMonk, thanks for looking this over and for contributing! Eloise Moonbug (talk) 09:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
The article Kelenken you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Kelenken for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chipmunkdavis -- Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
It has been classified as a synonym last year. But American Troodontid taxonomy seems to be always in a flux, so it's more likely an opinion.
I would approve merging Nomingia due to last year's study seems to be a strong suggest. But for Latenivenatrix…not sure. Huinculsaurus (talk) 09:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Unlike most synonym suggestions, this one has one of the describers of Latenivenatrix among the authorship (Phil Currie), which is unusual, and would indicate a change of opinion. I have a suspicion it may also have something to do with the misconduct of the lead author of that genus. FunkMonk (talk) 10:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
What's the suspicion you have with the misconduct? Patachonica (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
To "cancel" the name he authored, since his association has become an embarrassment. FunkMonk (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Have any subsequent studies considered Latenivenatrix valid? Patachonica (talk) 17:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
You can look at Google Scholar, most other papers seem to just mention it in passing, acknowledging it has been named, but little more. FunkMonk (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
What exactly do you mean by "most other papers seem to just mentioned it in passing, acknowledging it has been named"? Patachonica (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
That they haven't examined the issue in detail. FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Currie attended on the paper, but it might not be Currie directly indicating the proposed synonymy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.49.62.61 (talk) 12:11, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
I'd assume he would agree on the conclusions of a paper he is co-author of. FunkMonk (talk) 12:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
So is it more feasible to merge the page Latenivenatrix now or wait? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 14:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
The merge tag is to attract talk page discussion, where it will be decided what to do. FunkMonk (talk) 14:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
At least one study mentions both Stenonychosaurus and Latenivenatrix as distinct taxa in this year, and the study features Currie. Intriguingly that some of the papers featuring phylogenetic trees regarding Troodon still as valid also features Currie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 01:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
That is possibly because some researchers still use the name Troodon for the Two Medicine Formation specimens. FunkMonk (talk) 07:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the Thalassodromeus article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 28, 2022. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 28, 2022, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.
For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.
Thank you today for the article, introduced (in 2018): "This is only the second article about a pterosaur to be nominated as FAC (after Istiodactylus). This particular pterosaur is unusual for having one of the largest cranial crests of any animal, and for both its genus and specific names apparently being misnomers. There has been speculation that the only known skull of this animal was lost in the National Museum of Brazil fire (though not confirmed by reliable sources), which will perhaps make the info currently in this article all we'll ever know about it (unless more fossils are found)."! - I have a FAC open, in case of interest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Welcome! FunkMonk (talk) 10:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this award in recognition of the thorough, detailed and actionable reviews you have carried out at FAC. This work is very much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! I haven't reviewed one of yours in a while, but they usually get rushed by reviewers before I get the chance, hehe. FunkMonk (talk) 10:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
No worries, you certainly do your share. But don't let that prevent you from looking at Battle of Ticinus . Gog the Mild (talk) 11:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Nice, will keep an eye on it. FunkMonk (talk) 11:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Phosphatodraco you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 00:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
The article Phosphatodraco you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Phosphatodraco for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Congratulations, FunkMonk! The article you nominated, Kelenken, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, HogFarm(talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, fastest TFA selection I've seen too, hehe. FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Was it also before promotion, as I have seen recently? - Seriously: thank you today for the article, introduced: "This is the first FAC about a phorusrhacid (or "terror bird"), and the largest one at that. Despite having had the largest head of any known bird, little has been published about it beyond its original 2007 description, and most of it is summarised here."! - Pleased to have the pictured DYK on the page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, looks like it. FunkMonk (talk) 11:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
It was known from postcranial remains and I cannot find any sources beside a paper in the 2000s saying it to be a nomen dubium, like Nuthetes (I've fixed the page Nuthetes and removed the saying of it to be a nomen dubium because I cannot find any sources saying it to be a nomen dubium, added a source of the diagnosis of Nuthetes, we can follow the source), but I am curious which paper classifies it as an oviraptorosaur? Huinculsaurus (talk) 22:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Well, Nuthetes is problematic because it's not really diasgnostic as far as I understand, and there's uncertainty over whether it's even a dromaeosaur or proceratosaurid. But no, I can't find a classification of Calamospondylus past coelurosauria, but you can probably find out if you track down who added that classification here. FunkMonk (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
The paper recognizing Nuthetes as valid is published by Milner (2002), and it is this one:
"Theropod dinosaurs of the Purbeck Limestone Group, southern England" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 06:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Uhm, a 2002 paper by Milner doesn't trump a 2010 paper co-authored by Milner. FunkMonk (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
In fact, I cannot find any post-2002 papers still regarding Nuthetes to be a nomen dubium, so it is safe to follow Milner (2002) to treat Nuthetes as a valid taxon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 00:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
The 2010 paper says "Indeed, the strongly transversely flattened and recurved teeth of Proceratosaurus are very similar to the teeth of some dromaeosaurids, such as Velociraptor, and thus caution is needed when referring isolated teeth from the Late Jurassic/Early Cretaceous to the Dromaeosauridae on the basis of general shape and denticle size difference, as has been done previously (e.g. Ruiz-Omeñaca, Canudo & Cuenca-Bescós, 1996; Zinke, 1998; Milner, 2002; Rauhut, 2002; Sweetman, 2004). Likewise, isolated theropod teeth from the Late Bathonian Forest Marble, described as ‘dromaeosaurid-like’ by Evans & Milner (1994: 316 and fig. 18.7), might represent this or a closely related taxon." FunkMonk (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
But the validity of Nuthetes's holotype is defended in Milner's 2002 paper, so we can retain it to be a valid genus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 05:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
You do realise that 2010 comes after 2002, right? FunkMonk (talk) 11:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
But the validity is currently stable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus (talk • contribs) 14:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
We don't even know what family it belongs to or how it would be distinct. Part of Milner's 2002 diagnosis is that it's a dromaeosaur of that time, and even that is uncertain, as Milner conceded in the 2010 paper. FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I have reviewed the GA nom for this species. As this is my first GA review, would appreciate if you could take a look at it. --Tagooty (talk) 04:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Alright, I'll have a look soonish. FunkMonk (talk) 04:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I've seen that you are a frequent article reviewer, I will be nominating the above article for GA (I had done so in December of last year but was told it was too early). I'm interested if you could help, the pandemic is winding down per [[1][2][3][4] Sept 14, 2022..."the end is in sight—we can see the finish line"] and I'm in no rush, I realize your time is valuable, thank you,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not really well-versed in medical subjects, I believe it would be better to ask someone involved with WP:WikiProject COVID-19. FunkMonk (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
ok, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Congratulations, FunkMonk! The article you nominated, Phosphatodraco, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, IanRose(talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Quick! FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Ok FunkMonk I agree that this may have been very disruptive, but I must clarify. The page 106 of this very book (which is cited on the sentences about its size) states this:
"Clauss et al. (2003) looked at the nutritional constraints of large body size, particularly in contrasting the relatively efficient foregut-fermenting ruminants (which tend not to grow to huge sizes) versus the inefficient hindgut fermenters like elephants, rhinos and hippos. Based on these constraints, they found that Fortelius and Kapppleman's (1993) estimate of 11-15 tonnes for indricotheres was more consistent with digestive constraints of the higher estimates of 20 tonnes or greater. Thus, we must be careful when quoting old numbers from early authors about the weights of extinct creatures. Indricotheres probably weighed only in the 10-15 tonne range and maxed out at 20 tonnes on the largest individuals. It is very unlikely that there were any in the 30-35 tonne range, as is so often cited."
Clearly it states the weight range at 10-15 tonnes and max at 20 tonnes, not max 15-20 tonnes. Now I think the confusion for max 15-20 tonnes came from the later page which is not cited at those sentences. In page 117 it is stated:
"As we saw in the Granger and Gregory (1935, 1936) reconstruction, this beast was 6 m (18 feet) tall at the shoulder and probably weighed 15-20 tonnes."
But as the pages before states, Donald Prothero is cautionary about using the old study. Also, this featured article states the height of Paraceratherium at 4.8 m which many authors concur, so the 15-20 tonne range may not be a correct wording. Junsik1223 (talk) 12:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Ok, but as I have told you repeatedly, why don't you just start a talk-page section about things like this instead of making messy edits that others have to clean up after you afterwards? I see you started a section at the paleo project, so let's continue there. FunkMonk (talk) 17:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
I was dumb with the Tarbosaurus feathers thing. Good point on that, sorry that I was a bit of an idiot there LouisGarb (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Well, it's understandable, it is an ongoing debate with little clear evidence. It will probably go back and forth every other year, and a middle ground with sparse feathering is probably the most neutral thing to show, when we have such images. FunkMonk (talk) 07:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Would you be so kind as to help me with my article on the Japanese fire-bellied newt? I think it's pretty close, and I almost nominated already, but decided it would wiser to wait and seek assistance from someone with more experience. I tried nominating it for a peer review, but the comments I received were vague and rather unhelpful (and the person who left them apparently vanished), so I figured it would be better to seek a more direct route (and one that Wikipedia itself strongly encourages). Please give me your own input, if you don't mind. An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Sure, one step I always take before FAC is WP:GAN. You could try to set one up, then I will review it there, if no one else beats me to it. FunkMonk (talk) 09:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Some of it was unhelpful, such as removing "(abbreviated as C)", but feel free to reimplement the other changes that don't remove explanatory notes. FunkMonk (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Hmmm, we wasn't banned, though, so seems weird why he would try to hide that he's still editing? FunkMonk (talk) 08:45, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Presumably he is tired of you scrutinizing his edits. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:59, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
That edit pattern is pretty hard to miss, though... But yeah, that seems pretty disingenuous, in a lazy way. Pretending to have retired so I won't notice further edits, lol... FunkMonk (talk) 14:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Img kingkong1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thank you today for Phosphatodraco, introduced: "This is the first FAC about an azhdarchid, the pterosaur group which includes the largest flying creatures that ever lived. This genus was not particularly large, but is significant in being one of the only known members of the group with an almost completely preserved neck, which has helped inform interpretations about the lifestyle of its kind."! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Very welcome! FunkMonk (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
On 26 December 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Glacialisaurus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Glacialisaurus, meaning 'icy lizard', got its name from its discovery site in the Beardmore Glacier? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Glacialisaurus. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Glacialisaurus), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Thank you today for Réunion swamphen, introduced (in 2020): "It's been a while since we've had an extinct mystery bird at FAC, and here's one of the most enigmatic ones. The few things known about the bird are covered here, and there is probably little more that can ever be said about it until a fossil is some day found. Since it is only known from contemporary accounts, most of these are included, similar to how most sources treat the bird. It is therefore rather quote heavy (with commentary on these when available), since merely summarizing them would need unwarranted OR interpretation, and would be less interesting."! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
And welcome again! FunkMonk (talk) 08:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Would you be able to review frilled lizard? LittleJerry (talk) 13:41, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Hopefully, have to finish Diprotodon, which will probably take a while. FunkMonk (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Well I figured you were waiting for Jens to finish and mine is much shorter. LittleJerry (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm lacking in time in general, barely even time to write anything myself, so it's just taking slower than usual. FunkMonk (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
The text of the vocalization subsection copies about 90% of the wording of the source. Would you be able to paraphase it more? LittleJerry (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
My Wikipedia time is pretty limited, so I'm mainly reviewing articles and editing images at the moment. Not much energy for cleaning up stuff. FunkMonk (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've Talk:Diodorus scytobrachion/GA1begun reviewing the article Diodorus scytobrachion you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
The article Diodorus scytobrachion you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Diodorus scytobrachion for comments about the article, and Talk:Diodorus scytobrachion/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Congratulations, FunkMonk! The article you nominated, Diodorus scytobrachion, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, IanRose(talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 09:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Could we request a new life restoration based on the "Horridus" specimen. The most complete specimen. ? LittleJerry (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
I think you did already in the WP:dinoart review? There weren't really any responses, but I think some of our existing ones may be ok or could be modified to be. FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi. In our edit-comments exchange about the Dodo article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodo ) you wrote: (I do, I wrote this article and took it to multiple reviews where no one complained about that issue, and that consensus is what determines the layout. If you have a problem, bring it up it up on the talk page so it can be evaluated by others instead of edit-warring.)
I do was a direct response to my comment that you don't get to impose your software preferences upon other people. I would suggest that, just because you wrote the article, that doesn't mean you get to expect that the way you view a page is the same way others will. Your browser setup is neither more nor less "standard" than mine or anyone else's.
I identified a layout problem that affects the way the article will be seen and understood by probably a great many visitors to the page, and I came up with a minor change to the wording that will correct the problem and make it read better in both your setup and mine, and likely a great many others as well. Instead of allowing the edit to stand, you have insisted on reverting it numerous times. I would remind you that it is YOU who started an "edit war" over this; any reasonable editor would see the sense of it and let it stand as the improvement that it is.
However many "reviews" it has undergone is irrelevant, if none of those reviewers recognize the problem. Their reviews plus mine: this is how consensus is reached.
As for bringing it up in the Talk page, I'll do as you suggest; however, you know as well as I do that a few people might see it there, fewer still would bother to investigate it, and nothing will change. And this is why Wikipedia has the editing policy that it does: so that a community of editors can come up with the best possible encyclopedia.
I'm asking you politely to reconsider, put your ego aside (there can be no other reason for your obstinacy), and either return the page to the edited form I suggested, or come up with a wording, yourself, that does away with the layout problem. rowley (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I can only repeat; if you want something changed in a long standing text of a WP:featured article that has been reviewed by multiple experienced editors, the onus is on you to demonstrate on the talk page of the article why such a change is necessary so other editors can evaluate whether it is worthwhile or not. As it stands, you have not demonstrated that this is a problem for anyone but yourself (with screenshots or similar), or why a degradation of the writing by chopping up an already short sentence should in any way help, but stubbornly continue to edit-war against consensus to impose your narrow solution. It is very possible that the issue can be fixed in a less intrusive way, or that it is simply an issue with your own settings. FunkMonk (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Jmrowland:, I'm not seeing any particular layout problem with either version. For both versions, I've tried desktop view on a desktop, mobile view on a desktop, and mobile view on a cellphone (in each case with different zoom levels to see if that affected the layout). Your version does produce a blank line above the text (across desktop/desktop, desktop/mobile, cellphone/mobile). For me, on a desktop (mobile and desktop views), the text is sandwiched to the right of the images. On a cellphone the images are centered above the text. People view Wikipedia with many different devices, with different resolutions and screen aspect ratios. It is difficult to optimize layout for all devices. If your changes improved the layout on your device, I suspect the addition of the blank line had more to do with the improvement than any changes in wording. Plantdrew (talk) 02:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
I suspect that the new Wikipedia skin/layout which has been rolled out is causing problems with articles that otherwise looked fine before (it seems to squeeze text and images closer together), as well. I've manually changed back to the original, and it appears others are unhappy with it too. FunkMonk (talk) 02:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you today for Seychelles parakeet, "about an obscure, extinct parakeet, which I happened to have a lot of sources about, so finally thought it should get the treatment. There is also a little bit of nice art history in the mix."! - I have the pictured DYK about a fascinating woman - my story today. Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, didn't see it was now! FunkMonk (talk) 07:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
i noticed that the article states that the timezgadiouine formation is dated to about 230million years ago, while the blurb mentions that the fossils are dated to this time. is it appropriate for the blurb to make this statement about the dating of the fossils? my understanding is that, outside of unusual circumstances, fossils found in a formation would generally be considered to be dated to around the time the formation is dated to, but i was unsure if this was also the case here. if not, i was thinking of replacing that sentence in the blurb with "Fossils used to name the new genus and species were discovered in the Argana Basin's Timezgadiouine Formation, which dates to about 230million years ago.", which would also keep the blurb within the character limit.
is the argana group the same thing as the argana basin? if so, i am not sure what would be best: (1)linking "Argana Basin" in the blurb to "Argana Group" ("Argana Basin"), (2)moving the article "Argana Group" to "Argana Basin" and linking "Argana Basin" in the blurb ("Argana Basin"), (3)changing "Argana Basin" in the blurb to "Argana Group" and linking it ("Argana Group"), (4)leaving the blurb as is, or (5)something else i had not considered.
Hi, I'll have a look later, I didn't write the TFA blurb, but wording there that may be iffy could be replaced by equivalents from the article intro. FunkMonk (talk) 13:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
oh, no worries, i had figured that you hadn't compiled the blurb. i'm just assuming that those of us who are working on the blurb aren't experts on the subject matter, so i wanted to seek your advice to make sure that we get it right. i know i certainly am not an expert on dinosauromorphs.regarding the first question, i tried to be more faithful to the article lead in my proposed replacement, but i don't know if the rewording is actually necessary in the first place, or if the current wording is already sufficient. simply using the article lead itself is problematic, as there is a character limit to blurbs. unfortunately, errors sometimes inadvertently crop up when article leads are being summarized, which is why i wanted to check with you to see if there was an issue here.regarding the second question, there is no issue with leaving the blurb as is, since the red link that was initially there was removed to conform with wp:redno. i just thought it might be helpful to turn a red link in the article lead blue if the argana basin happened to be the same thing as the argana group. dying (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Ah, I barely noticed it was already TFA, dying, so I didn't get to look too deeply into the blurb,and maybe my answer is too late. I agree we need to be cautious when stating the age, as in this case, it's actually uncertain what age the formation itself is. As for the Argana Basin vs Argana Group, the basin would be an area, whereas the group is a geological unit, which is named after the basin I'd assume, and therefore not the same (the formations of the group would be exposed in the area, which is the correlation). Similar to how the Nemegt Formation is named after the Nemegt Basin. Since the Timezgadiouine Formation which Diodorus is from is part of the Argana Group as well, it could probably be fine to mention in the article, but unfortunately it isn't named in the source used. I have reinstated the red links, by the way, as there is quite a chance these articles will be created, and the way this happens is when editors come across them. FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
it's too late to change the blurb for the benefit of main page readers, but i appreciate the answer all the same. i had not known that there was a difference between the argana basin and the argana group (and now realize that i would have figured it out had i read past the lead of the article on the timezgadiouine formation), so thank you for taking the time explaining it to me. i also agree with the reinstatement of the red links; they're not appropriate for the main page, but outside of that, they can be useful for alerting other editors to notable subjects that do not have articles yet. dying (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
should the 'I' in "Seychelles Island parrot" be uncapitalized? the seychelles itself is not an island, but consists of many islands, and the bird was found on more than one island of the seychelles, so i am assuming that it was not named after any one island of the seychelles. if it was capitalized because this alternative name of the bird is generally capitalized in reliable sources, i would assume that the 'p' would have been capitalized too. in my opinion, it makes more sense if "island" was interpreted as a noun adjunct, modifying parrot.
i noticed that the article mentions that little is known about the habits of the seychelles parakeet, and presumes that they were similar to that of the alexandrine parakeet. the article also describes the habits of the latter parakeet. the blurb, however, lists these habits as those of the former parakeet, without mentioning that they are only presumed to be those of the former. is the presumption strong enough that the blurb should not need to mention this? if you think it should be mentioned, i would suggest the addition of "presumably" before "associated" to resolve this issue. in addition, as adding this word would make the blurb exceed the character limit, i would drop "researchers" to compensate, as taxonomic opinions are generally not mentioned in blurbs unless they have been expressed by researchers.
please note that this blurb is currently on the main page. apologies for bringing these points up so late; i had admittedly forgotten that this blurb was scheduled for today. i completely understand if you don't get the chance to address these questions in time. dying (talk) 22:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Island can probably be de-capitalised then (in both article and blurb). I also think your second suggestion makes sense (and again, I didn't write this blurb either), and the intro itself does say "Little is known regarding the bird's habits, but they were presumably similar to those of the Alexandrine parakeet". FunkMonk (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
oh, yeah, the article lead already mentions the presumption; sorry for not making it clear that i had been aware of this. also, of course, you aren't to blame for any errors resulting from the drafting of the blurb; it's actually my fault that i had not raised these issues earlier, and i apologize for that. thanks again for addressing my concerns, FunkMonk. dying (talk) 23:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
No problem, feel free to fix the blurb and intro accordingly. FunkMonk (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the Mauritius sheldgoose article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 3, 2023. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page blurb, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 3, 2023, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. If you wish to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article, you can do so at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/July 2023.
Oh, now I have no more FACs left to go on the main page! I believe we're pretty much out of extinct and prehistoric animal FACs to feature... FunkMonk (talk) 14:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
... but today we thank you first for Diodorus scytobrachion, introduced: "This is the first FAC about a silesaurid, a member of a group of strange dinosaur-relatives, which may actually be dinosaurs themselves according to the latest research. This particular genus isn't known by much, so the article covers everything that has been published about it, and gives a bit of a wider look at its group for context."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Welcome! FunkMonk (talk) 11:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you today for the article, introduced (in 2021): "Here is another article in the series about extinct Mascarene birds. This one is a pretty obscure duck, which, like the rest, was exterminated by human activities. Not much has been written about it, so most if not all of it is summarised here. Some historical accounts are included for flavour, and because most of the sources give them in full."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
And welcome again, that was a lot of extinct animal FAs in quick succession, we almost don't have any left! FunkMonk (talk) 11:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi, what do you want improved? FunkMonk (talk) 11:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've Talk:Rodrigues night heron/GA1begun reviewing the article Rodrigues night heron you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
The article Rodrigues night heron you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Rodrigues night heron for comments about the article, and Talk:Rodrigues night heron/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 02:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Flowering herbs and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 4#Flowering herbs until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chipmunkdavis -- Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Kelenken for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chipmunkdavis -- Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
; see Talk:Kelenken for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chipmunkdavis -- Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
