Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
I've been frogging over the past few days, and the fungi season has definitely started! I have a coral fungi that I thought you would like for wiki, plus I also have a puff ball which I will upload later, will leave a message here when it is uploaded. Saw lots of fungi over the last few days, but only photographed the really interesting ones as I was using my small memory card, and wanted to leave some space for frogs.
There was another nearby (about half a metre) which was 8cm tall, so I would go with Ramaria lorithamnus. It was taken in rainforest, was very little Eucalypt around. Do you want me to upload it to wiki? Thanks. --liquidGhoul11:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Nomenclature of fungi
Hey there. I recently stumbled across an issue of Nova Hedwigia Beheift titled "the genera of fungi" (or was it agaricaceae?). It's filled to the brink with mind-numbing nomenclatural discussions of all the genera ever described (I think, anyway). Would it be any use if I looked up the specific ref or any specific genera? Circeus00:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
That would be friggin' trés bién. The first one that would be absolutely great to get a clarification on is Agaricus which was called Psalliota in many texts fro many years and I've been mystified as to why. Other articles I intend cleaning up are Amanita muscaria, which is the one I intended taking to FA first but it just didn't come together well, Gyromitra esculenta as a future FA, Agaricus bisporus as a future FA, and cleaning up the destroying angels - Amanita virosa, Amanita bisporiga and Amanita verna. Boletus edulis would be a good one to check too. let me know if anything interesting pops up. I'll see ifd I can think of any other taxonomic quagmires later today. Work just got real busy :( cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs02:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Generally, that's pretty arcane and only relevant to genus articles, or species that were tightly involving in defining them (for example, there seems to be an odd debate over the multiple type species for Amanita). I'll look up Agaricus, Amanita (since A. muscaria's the current type) and Psalliota. I'll also dig up the ref so you can look it up yourself, with any chance. Circeus04:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I only quickly thumbed through it and noted the full ref (Donk, M.A. (1962). "The generic names proposed for Agaricaceae". Beiheifte zur Nova Hedwigia. 5: 1–320. ISSN0078-2238.) because I forgot about it until the last minute. Psalliota looks like a classic synonym case. It shares the same type with Agaricus, and might be older. Circeus01:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Weird! I thought Linnaeus was calling all sorts of things Agaricus so I wonder how it could predate that really....anyway I am curious.cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, First thing I have to say is... Damn, 18th-19th century taxonomy and nomenclature of fungi is a right mess. Whose bright idea was it to give fungi 3 starting dates in the ICBN???
LOTS of "per" in citation here. See
On Agaricus
Etym.: Possibly "from Agarica of Sarmatica, a district of Russia" (!). Note also Greek ἀγαρικόν "a sort of tree fungus" (There's been an Agaricon Adans. genus, treated by Donk in Persoonia 1:180)
Donk says Linnaeus' name is devalidated (so that the proper author citation apparently is "L. per Fr., 1821") because Agaricus was not linked to Tournefort's name (Linnaeus places both Agaricus Dill. and Amanita Dill. in synonymy), but truely a replacement for Amanita Dill., which would require that A. quercinus, not A. campestris be the type. This question compounded by the fact that Fries himself used Agaricus roughly in Linnaeus' sense (which leads to issues with Amanita), and that A. campestris was eventually excluded from Agaricus by Karsten and was apparently in Lepiota at the time Donk wrote this, commenting that a type conservation might become necessary.
All proposals to conserve Agaricus against Psalliota or vice versa have so far been considered superfluous.
On Lepiota
Etym. Probably greek λεπις, "scale"
Basionym is Agaricus sect. Lepiota Pers. 1797, devalidated by later starting date, so the citation is (Pers.) per S.F.Gray. It was only described, without species, and covered an earlier mentioned, but unnamed group of ringed, non-volvate species, regardless of spore color. Fries restricted the genus to white-spored species, and made into a tribe, which was, like Amanita repeatedly raised to genus rank.
The type is unclear. L. procera is considered the type (by Earle, 1909). Agaricus columbrinus (L. clypeolarus) was also suggested (by Singer, 1946) to avoid the many combination involved otherwise in splitting Macrolepiota, which include L. procera. Since both species had been placed into different genera prior to their selection (in Leucocoprinus and Mastocephalus respectively), Donk observes that a conservation will probably be needed, expressing support for Singer's emendation.
On Psalliota
Etym.: ψάλιον, "ring"
Psalliota was first published by Fries (1821) as trib. Psalliota. The type is Agaricus campestris (widely accepted, except by Earle, who proposed A. cretaceus). Kummer (not Quélet, who merely excluded Stropharia) was the first to elevate the tribe to a genus. Basically, Psalliota was the tribe containing the type of Agaricus, so when separated, it should have caused the rest of the genus to be renamed, not what happened. It seems to be currently not considered valid, or a junior homotypic synonym, anyway the explanation is that it was raised by (in retrospect) erroneously maintaining the tribe name.
On Amanita
Etym.: Possibly from Amanon,a mountain in Cilicia.
A first incarnation from Tentamen dispositionis methodicae Fungorum 65. 1797 is cited as devalidated: "Introduced to cover three groups already previously distinguished by Persoon (in Tent. 18. 1797) under Agaricus L., but at that time not named. It is worth stressing that was not mentioned."
With Agaricus L. in use, Amanita was a nomen nudum per modern standard, so Persoon gave it a new life unrelated to its previous incarnations, and that is finally published after a starting date by Hooker (the citation is Pers. per Hook., 1821). He reuses Withering's 1801 definition (A botanical arrangement of British plants, 4th ed.). "The name Amnita has been considered validly published on different occasions, depending on various considerations." Proposed types include (given as Amanita. Sometimes they were selected as Agarici):
A. livida Pers. (By Earle, in 1909). Had been excluded in Vaginata or Amanitopsis and could not be chosen.
A. muscaria Pers. (By Clemens & Shear, 1931) for the genus (1801) from Synopsis fungorum, was generally transferred to the one from Hooker's Flora of Scotland, which is currently considered the valid publication of Amanita (or was in the 50s).
A. phalloides (by Singer, 1936) for the 1801 genus.
A.bulbosa (by Singer & Smith, 1946) for Gray's republication. This is incorrect as Gray's A. bulbosa is a synonym of A. citrina. Some authors consider Gray to be the first valid republisher.
A. caeserea (by Gilbert, 1940). Troublesome because not known personally to Persoon or Fries.
Donk concludes the earliest valid type is A. muscaria, the species in Hooker, adding that he'd personally favor A. citrina.
The name has been republished three times in 1821: in Hooker, Roques and Gray (in that order). Roques maintained Persoon's circumscription, including Amanitopsis and Volvaria. Gray excluded Amanitopsis and Volvariella into Vaginata. Right after, Fries reset the name by reducing the genus to a tribe of Agaricus, minus pink-spored Volvariella. This tribe became a subgenus, than genus via various authors, Quélet, altough not the first, often being attributed the change. Sometimes it was used in a Persoonian sense (whether that is a correct use according to ICBN is not clear to me).
Homonyms of Amanita Pers. are Amanita adans. (1763, devalidated) and Amanita (Dill) Rafin. (1830)
I gave it a primary copyedit and those are my comments so far:
"However, later discussion in 1994 showed that it was unclear whether the original Port Jackson reference had referred to this species"
Nothing has been mentioned so far that "Port Jackson reference" could refer back to. Done
"A mature male will start to attack another as soon as one red tail feathers is exposed; they must be separated if caged."
This bit in "description" is not really "descriptive". It should be somewhere in "behaviour". Done
"Flight is a rather slow with deep flapping."
A word appear to be missing in this sentence. Done
under "symbolism": "an implementation of initiatives to ensure the survival of the Karak subspecies" Done
Again, nothing tells us which subspecies that is actually supposed to be.
The "cited texts" of Flegg and garnett were not actually cited (though that is now mostly irrelevant). (problem - did Garnett, but Flegg wasn't my book in the first place so it is floating - can either leave it, delete it or...)
The paragraphs about who supported or opposed the TNW legislation are confusing and look contradictory or illogical.You might want to carefully re-read and rewrite them.
There are now 2 distinct refs by Garnett. Add an abbreviated title to the paged notes.
The arguing over the legislation is still confusing. The first group deplores the "do-nothing" policy, but in the same breath adds "a catastrophic collapse in the Northern Territory population was highly unlikely", so the reader wonders whether the legislation is necessary. As for Forshaw, he argues both on the side of conservation and harvesting, which is extremely confusing. Circeus16:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
You'll notice I've had a one-track Titan mind for nearly a week. Weird, but the longer I edit the more fixative I become. I don't even bother with the watchlist and just go back to the last thing I was working on. Shouldn't be so selfish... I'll try to go over the wolf (and Mr. Lion) myself over the next few days. Marskell20:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
California Condor
Thanks for your help in peer reviewing the condor article. I think I've addressed most of your concerns (still looking for one cite that I know I've seen somewhere), but you thought that a paragraph on the stork v. vulture v. unique order debate should be included in Taxonomy. Could you write that or give me a nudge in the right direction? I don't know much about that, and I also don't know how to write it and keep in neccesary for a California Condor article. Also, does anything else jump out at you? I'm planning on nominating it for FAC on Monday if nothing major pops up. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow15:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for all your work on the article :) It'd be great to get it to FA, but frankly I have no idea what the standards are like or what's needed (my first attempt - Age of Mythology - failed miserably). It's be good to work on it with somebody experienced, so thanks for everything! Giggy\ 06:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Lion is so damn big now, it's tough to get a handle on. I think the prose is in passable territory, although some bluelinks are turning up (e.g. teeth and jaw) that I don't think necessary. I'm more concerned about some sourcing. First, there's a couple hours of boring formatting to do and there are some weblinks that are too generic and unreliable for me. Those BBC animal pages are nice, but I wouldn't use them except for the most general stuff (we presently link the weight average to BBC). And anything like this does not belong, IMO.
Whenever I suggest taking even a GA to FAC is easy, remind me otherwise. Titan (moon) is indeed in good shape, but it's already been a week and eighty edits and I'm only half through it. Marskell13:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
RFA chart
Hey Cas,
Have you seen this? It has some mistakes on it, but what do you make of it? It's interesting, but it's hard to wrap my head around it. I thought perhaps someone in your profession might get a kick out of it. Firsfron of Ronchester22:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
A new task force has begun to improve the scope, quality and coverage of Rugby League State of Origin on Misplaced Pages. This task force is part of the WikiProject Rugby league. Please add your name at the participants page. The current to do part, is completing the "requested articles" which can be found on the main page. If you wish to join you can add one of the following (as a userbox):
Great! OK - the subspecies (if you can make a darker blue for Tas would be great - or lighter for mainland that would be really really cool).cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Malurus cyaneus cyaneus - Tasmania, King Island & Flinders Island
I've nominated André Kertész at FAC and hopefully it has the legs to make it accross the finish line. Despite this, I'd still love you to take a gander at the article and fix any spelling/grammar mistakes and rewrite and minor problems with prose if any exist. I'm quite proud of what I've done so far; 200 edits, 100% cited, added around 35,000 kilobytes and managed to find a free image of Kertesz. Anyway, I'd love if you could read through and amybe even give your opinion on the FAC page. Cheers Cas, :) Spawn Man07:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow, thanks for your enthusiasm. I'll understand if you don't wanna be in this for the long haul, but I'd sure appreciate if you'd be able to stick around for a bit - it's always nice to have someone else helping you at FAC. I've replied to Circeus on his talk page and on the to do sheet he left me on the talk page. I've left my concerns there and I'd love if you could come up with a couple of ideas as well as I'm at a loss. If you think we can make it, then I've got faith. Let's just hope it stays that way eh? ;) Thanks, Spawn Man02:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC) P.S. What's that crazy admin nomiantion picture link yu've got up there from Firs? It seems crazy! I found myself - by golly I've nominated a few people...
Oh, by the way, did you happen to see the lunar eclipse last night in oz? I stayed up till midnight watching it - it's the rarest type of lunar eclipse, the one where it goes red. It was best seen from Oz and NZ. The last one was in 2000 and the next one's in 2011. It was pretty cool. Anyway, just wondering... :) Spawn Man02:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
mumble, lucky you guys I hired a lens to photograph it spent 3 hours watching it rain never even saw the moon. Gnangarra02:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
That's unlucky. We thoguht it was going to be cloudly, but then it cleared just as it started so we saw the whole thing. Seriously, you wont see anything so beautiful ever again in this lifetime - a real wonder of the world. ;) Just messing... Spawn Man02:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
lol great thanks, it wasnt even decent rain it was just that heavy misty drizzle type stuff :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnangarra (talk • contribs) 03:16, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
Replied on the FAC page - hopefully some of that helps...? Hopefully... Otherwise I'm really gonna have a headache searching through 100+ pages of prose looking for the stuff I used... Spawn Man09:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Your book
I assume Schaller is that source you needed for some last troublesome facts? I feel the need to keep apologizing for this one because I got you into it and then didn't share the load. The sourcing has certainly seen dramatic growth.
This whole FAC thing is pretty stressful and I need a break. I don't want to dump things on you, but I'm gonna take a break for a day or two so would you be able to keep an eye on things in regard to Andre Kertesz? I've placed the page numbers in the references and added an info box on a request from somebody and I'm gonna see if there's any more references out there. I'm just kinda stressed right now. Anyway, I'm gonna go relax. Thanks if you can - if you can't, I guess I'll come back to a bunch of opposes lol. Cheers, Spawn Man03:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh & I forgot to mention that I really enjoy working with you Cas - in the future perhaps we could begin a two-man cleanup squad where we go around saving articles and selecting ones which are in dire need. Then maybe we could get more members and take over Misplaced Pages... Muahahaha! ;) In any case, you're a great guy. Cheers, Spawn Man03:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Could you PLEASE revert the title of the "Atlantic Northern right whale" to North Atlantic right whale, the CORRECT term for that species. I'm tired of having to go to every page were you appear to have incorrectly termed the species. Jonas Poole01:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Sorry for being an asshole about it, the title was bothering me and I didn't know how to change it. You wouldn't know how to cite books and papers, would you? I would like to add citations to the History of Whaling section, but I don't know how to go about it. Jonas Poole18:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again
I fixed up the History of Whaling section. You said you had experience with featured articles? Well, could you help me fix up the History of Whaling section? I'd like to make it look more like the other history sections I've seen, but I'm afraid I don't quite have the same writing style as the rest. I tend to write dry, technical works, and I don't really know I to write like the others. I have all the info I need, I just don't know how to get my thoughts on paper very well. If you've seen my History of Whaling on myspace you'll see what I mean. Often times it looks forced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonas Poole (talk • contribs) 02:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Not so quick response
Hey Cas. The communication section seems fine after a read, but the prose needs massaging. Too many semi-colons; I had a semi-colon phase once, where I'd have one for every other sentence, but I've evolved to "short declaratives" as the way to go. I've also settled on 'although' rather than 'though' (after talking with Tony). Anyhow, I'll edit the prose after I've slept off the six pack.
One problem with the bigness is that there's always something to quibble about with the TOC. I'm not entirely happy with the order here (e.g., 'White Lions' and 'Hybridization' made sense to me side-by-side, but they've been moved). Marskell19:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Given the hybridization is more an artificial than natural thing then it could go in description as well - I'm not too fussed on order. cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Fuck, I just tried to post something long, had a 'submit error', and then lost my crtl-c. Short story: I audited the para and (naturally) I think it better; watch your which/that usage, and phrasal excess (you can always avoid a sentence-inital "Consisting of,"). Marskell20:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Huia assessment
Hey there, I've been doing a lot of work on Huia over the past day or two and in about 3 hours I should be done adding extra information (with plenty of citations). This work represents a major expansion to the article and since you're an admin ( haha yeah I guess I do regard you as an authority with this status + you're obviously a very active member of the community) and a wikiproject birds member I was wondering if you could reassess it ( it's still at the "Start class" rating it was before I started working on it) as I want to get it to GA and comparing it with Kererū I think it should almost be there.. Cheers, Kotare07:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
What a bloody good idea, it's a great goal and it will be really satisfying to help get an article to FA - it's also great to hear someone else is keen for this sort of effort with a NZ bird! I know some others I could possibly get on board. I've been planning a collab for one of the New Zealand Wattlebird articles as they are a spectacular group of uniquely New Zealand birds and they have had very little work done on them so far. I'm really keen to run with Huia, because it's particularly unique but my only concern is that, even if we get up virtually all that is known about it, people might still think it's not up to FA standards because as a species it was little studied before extinction so there isn't alot of info about its biology. We can always go NATO on Kokako instead - Wha'dya reckon? Kotare08:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I think Kokako could be pretty big, I'll get back to you in the next couple of days once I've scouted out the scientific literature, I think we should be good with amount of source material but if not I'll find another NZ bird as an alternative. Cheers, Kotare09:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I've finished doing work on Huia for now, not sure if it's up to GA standards but would it be ok for you to reassess it at some point when you have the chance? I'd really appreciate the feedback because looking at HANZAB there is lots more to add and I'd be interested to know if some things need to be changed before I add more stuff but if you can't no worries. Cheers, Kotare06:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey Casliber, I'm curious as to what work you think Huia needs to get to GA, although I must admit I'm kinda flummoxed when I look at Kereru for comparison, especially when I compare it to other "good articles" of a biological nature - is it really well referenced or long enough to be a GA? Kotare12:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, obviously the five or so cite needed tags need to be taken care of.
Possibly lengthen the intro. It can probably be augmented by 50-60%
I'd personally like to see the taxonomy section higher, but the big listy parts are rather distracting, so I'll pass. Also, change the header to "Evolution and taxonomy", which is more reader-friendly.
I think Pantherais usually divided in subgenera. The specific placement of the lion probably needs to be covered then.
Placing the single "White lions" paragraph under it's header there seems inappropriate.To me it looks like that should be covered in "physical characteristics" Done
Consider putting the general text on lions in captivity as the intro text to the "lions and humans" section. Expand what it there too, obviously, because it is pathetic. I'm sure good material's been written on caring for lions in captivity.
Rename "attacks on human" to the more specific "man-eaters". The current title suggests it would cover e.g. attacks by captive lions. Done
A image of an heraldic lion should probably be in "cultural depictions". Agree - Done
Link aslan to wiktionary (in lowercase) instead of tr: Done
The article does not seem to cover health. What peculiar diseases, parasites or injuries are lion susceptible to? There is a brief mention in "conservation status", but there should be more covering IMO. Done
When I said "Expand what it there too", I was referring to the "lion baiting and taming" section that was placed as a subsection of "In captivity". Circeus11:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for article-sitting Kertesz whilst I was away. At least we've got no opposes as yet, and the opening looks 1 million times better thanks to Circeus. Anyway, I'm gonna have to give those books back to the library in the face of late fees, but I'll continue looking for extra sources. Do you still think the article can make it? Spawn Man08:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Man, are you ever offline? ;) Are you waiting for Circeus, me or someone else to reply, cause I've replied already... I've just been commenting on another FAC where someone called me wrong. Pah, Spawn Man is never wrong! ;) Seriously though, I kept me cool and replied explaining how right I was and then changed my vote to oppose. Quite proud really.... Anyway, I'm bored of Andre Kertesz now funnily - I do this; rewrite something and then move on. It was comic villains before Kertesz, then photographers and Kertesz and I think I want to move on now. Did you give any thought to my earlier proposal about being a rewriting team? Since I like changing subjects all the time, it'd suit me a whole lot and you're just brilliant at FACs and rewriting - we could be great! Well...? It'd give me something to log on for... Anyway, Spawn Man08:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I was checking it out before you mentioned it - hmmm... I wonder if anyone reads my user page? Spent so much damn time on it, I'd laugh if no one bothered to read it. How about this; we each put together a list of articles we want to expand and then we can go through them or figure out a middle ground. I'll go through now and post them here tomorrow. I think we have a great collaboration ahead of us Cas. Personally though, I hate birds, so I can see me hating any birds articles we might work on. But I guess I mgiht get used to the feathery little nibblets (made that word up...) Anyway, Spawn Man08:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC). P.S. How is your name pronounced? Is it Cas as in the "s" is like a z, so Caz? Or a soft "s" as Cassie?
Just added some more citations, but I'm still gonna look for more. Cheers, Spawn Man04:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC). P.S. And I'm gonna go compile a list now & I'll post it here for now. I'm gonna do as wide a range of topics as possible...
Your Imperial Majesty, it gives me great pleasure to bestow these Imperial Triple Crown Jewels in recognition of your contributions to Misplaced Pages. May you wear them well. Durova20:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
My list:
Okay, here it is. I'll group stuff in topical sections. Maybe we can create a subpage on our user pages to keep our collaborative efforts and our projects. I'm thinking big here, so I'll get started. Here they are:
Animals:
Duck. Crab. (Check out the misc sections in Crab and Duck; they both have the sentence "The Moche people of ancient Peru worshipped nature, especially the sea. They placed emphasis on animals and often depicted crabs/ducks in their art". The only word changed is crab/duck, so I'm doubting the verifibility of this claim.)
Snow Leopard. Worked on this before - needs major work.
Griffin. Looks fine, but underneath has serious issues. Like Tom Cruise. ;)
Toad. Comprised mainly of a list of species and not much else. It also has the same "The Moche people of ancient Peru worshipped animals and often depicted toads in their art..." sentence as Duck and Crab.
Nail (anatomy). We all have them, but the article is made of small paras.
Night. No sources and almost all sections are prodded as needing attention. Possibly Day needs attention as well...
Colours - I know, but they are in dire need of cleanup...:
Green, Red, Blue (A bit better than the rest), White, Yellow (Which has OR and sentences like: "The planet Saturn is yellowish, like a class G star"), Orange (colour), Violet, Indigo as well as any article from List of colors. Seeing as how a new colour is created every second (so I've heard) then we might have a lot of work to do. But we can get a great Featured Topic if we get a few up to scratch.
My second fave article; Really really short articles. I'm not sure if they'll be easy to find info on, but I'm sure we'll be able to find something to expand them:
Amolops nepalicus. Adding a line or two could double the article's size.
Adenomus. Keep on coming up with frog articles on random article...
Well, that's just the tip of the iceberg. We can either: 1) Begin working on these articles we've both suggested. 2) Press the random article button and edit whatever comes up if it's notable (A bit silly really...) or 3) Give up the whole idea. I'm leaning toward 1), but we'd need to set up a subpage on our user pages and compile a firm list of what articles we want to expand. Then we can decide if we want anyone else in on the act. Maybe Circeus would be interested? Or someone else you know. Or maybe we could occasionally enlist people to help - an expert maybe. Anyway, I'm really excited - I hate working on articles alone and if we did the old "my turn, your turn" in choosing articles, we could keep on going indefinitely. We get on pretty well as well, which can't hurt... So, whatdoyasay? Partners? Spawn Man05:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Great Scot man! Are you ever ever offline? I'm beginning to think you edit wikipedia whilst listening to patients "Doc, are you even listening to me??" ;) In regard to "some of those thingies look good too..." - what things? Anyway, get back to me later, as I really think we could be a great team. You've come a really long way from when I first saw your edits on t rex (Or was it Dinosaur...?) and now you've helped get more articles featured than me. Cheers, Spawn Man05:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Nah, I don't like putting my name to DYKs that I didn't create - just a habit thing. The only one I've done it with was Janjucetus. Anyway, how about this - We both close our FAC's, Andre for me, and your future lion FAC for you. Then we meet back here and begin. We can bring Circeus in on the act during FAC time or as a general copyeditor. Anyway, I'm gonna chill out for a while. See ya later! :) Spawn Man05:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, is that all? I didn't include it because I didn't think it was important lol. I'll stick it in after dinner. You're very optimistic. I'm more a Mr. Negativity. :) Spawn Man06:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay; I added notations to most of the books in the bibliography section - I'm asuming you wanted them there as that's where most of his books are. Check it out anyway, and if there's something missing, tell me. If not, I've fufilled your request. Cheers, :) Spawn Man06:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
It looks like it didn't pass and I was suprised it closed so early. Anyways, any other suggestions you have would be appreciated. Thank you sir! Chupper01:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Trying to maintain support for Muscle relaxant as a nominee for the collaboration of the week - noticed that you made a supporting comment but did not vote for it. Could you throw in a pro vote to keep it from expiring? Thanks! Steve Carlson01:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Red cockatoo thingy:
I've commented at the article's FAC - hopefully you won't take me opposing for the time being the wrong way. I just saw some things which need some cleaning up and thought an oppose vote would draw light to them quicker as well as not making people think I'm a CANVASSed vote or anything. Anyway, I thought you were working on lion at the moment? At least this can be a kinda collaboration - me commenting on your FAC. Anyway, still no action on the Kertesz FAC as yet. Kinda bored now - guess I'm too excited waiting for lion to get featured so we can start collaborating. C ya. Spawn Man08:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, I think Wellington zoo here in NZ had a lion as its first animal. I think it was given to our first Prime Minister as a gift from overseas and he built the first zoo in Wellington (And NZ...?) with it. It was called King Dick. I know, charming name... Don't know if that's what you meant by zoo references? I'll take a look at the article tomorrow or something. Spawn Man11:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Replied/supported. Looks great now. In regard to our collaboration thingy, we could take turns nominating for FAC; for example if the article came from my list of articles, I'd get to nom and if it came from yours you'd get to etc. I can't wait. You mentioned that you were a D&D player - I've noticed that the Warhammer articles are pretty poor - maybe they'd be worth working on too...? Anyway, Spawn Man05:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Stumbled upon this AfD (Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Spiders in culture) and thought our help could be sorely needed. I think we can save this article in much the same way as you save lions IPC - there's tonnes of stuff and I think about a day or two's work and we could have ourselves another success. I'm gonna finish going through the AfD lists to vote on a few, and hopefully you'll accept the challenge. Cheers, Spawn Man05:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, make a subpage for a list and put all the articles you've thought of there and once we've got our FAs out of the way, we can narrow it down/begin. Spawn Man06:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Count me in once we've done our lists, got our FAs off and of course, I'm gonna be working on Spiders in pop culture for a wee bit. Any help there would be appreciated. I tried to rewrite the opening without any books at my side, but I'm gonna go look for references soon - there's been a few more delete votes, so I dunno if I just left the article if it'd be okay. Anyway, gotta go edit. Cheers, Spawn Man06:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I've begun work on the Spiders IPC article - I'm really proud. I think I've done a really transforming job. I don't even recognise my work any more, not after I've worked on Andre Kertesz and begun editing really well. You've helped as well Cas - I think my editing has improved since I've been collaborating with you, even if it has been a short time. Anyway, if you have any references, I'd love to have them to add to the ones I've got so far in the spider article. Cheers Cas - I'm so happy. I finally feel like a pro editor. Thanks. Spawn Man09:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Rewrote/expanded a couple of the paras you added. I think I/we've done enough to save it from deletion, but I'll keep on rewriting whilst your FAs are being done. Still excited, but getting impatient... :) Cheers, Spawn Man23:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I thought we weren't starting our collaboration until after you've finished with lion etc?? If you start with vampires you'll have lion, red cockatoo thing, vampires and anything else you're working on. To select articles we have to set up a way to select them man, because if we just start working on everything, we'll soon lose interest or have too many projects. So for the time being, focuss on your other projects, keep vampire aside (it ain't going anywhere) and then we'll set up how to vote/select articles from our list. I'd suggest we only work on one article at a time. And no, I hardly ever, if ever, use my watchlist even though I've got like 2000 pages on it. Cheers, Spawn Man00:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Lemme finish rewriting it to a good standard so we have the foundations to work from, then we can try to get it to GA. But like I said, it'd help if we both got our previous engagements (Kertesz and lion) out of the way before we start collaborating. Cheers, Spawn Man00:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
A collection of general / specific material about zookeeping of mammals
Since that seems to cause you serious trouble, I prowled WorldCat for potential places to look:
Bonner, Jeffrey P. (2006). "Lions and Tigers and Bears". Sailing with Noah : stories from the world of zoos. Columbia: University of Missouri Press. ISBN0-8262-1636-6.
Crandall, Lee S. (1964). The management of wild mammals in captivity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. OCLC557916.
Crandall, Lee S. (1975) . A zoo man's notebook. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN0-226-11762-6. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Bell, Catherine E. (2001). Encyclopedia of the world's zoos. Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn. ISBN1-57958-174-9.
I once thumbed through this one, and I'd be surprised if there was nothing you could use. It includes a number of entries for animals, so with some luck it might provide further sources.
Hediger, Heidi (1968). The psychology and behaviour of animals in zoos and circuses. New York: Dover. ISBN0-486-62218-5.
Baratay, Eric (2002). Zoo : a history of zoological gardens in the West. London: Reaktion. ISBN1-861891-11-3. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Koebner, Linda (1994). Zoo book : the evolution of wildlife conservation centers. New York: T. Doherty. ISBN0-312-85322-X.
Robinson, Phillip T. (2004). Life at the zoo : behind the scenes with the animal doctors. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN0-231-13248-4.
Man, I feelso stupid. It turns out 3 references (Bell, Baratay and Robinson) were available at my municipal library (I'm not yet used to how much bigger it is here!). I looked at the Heidiger ref (it's Heini, not Heidi btw), but did not find much of interest in it. Looking at Encyclopedia of Zoos right now. Circeus18:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've started a bit with Baratay (which might replace a significant amount of the undu-ly weighted Tower London Stuff, as it is significantly more global), but it is a very hefty book (ca. 400 pages, 25x25cm), and I am not very good at condensing info (especially as this discuss a related, but distinct topic), so it might take me some time to digest and turn what is there in usable material. Circeus21:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to copy-edit whenever you like, or not at all: I'd like to see what you make of it. My major complaint with the article as it stands is the unnecessarily chunked paragraphs, so if you could pay some attention to that, I would appreciate it. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson15:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment:
You recently placed "The Moche people of ancient Peru worshipped nature. They placed emphasis on animals and often depicted spiders in their art." in the cultural depictions of spiders article. I had thought of putting this in but was hesistant due to the text's appearance in many other articles. For example, in duck "The Moche people of ancient Peru worshipped nature. They placed emphasis on animals and often depicted ducks in their art.", in frog "The Moche people of ancient Peru worshipped animals and often depicted frogs in their art.", in toad "The Moche people of ancient Peru worshipped animals and often depicted toads in their art.", and again in crab, although it could also have been included in numerous others. It seems as though someone has simply copied and pasted the segment onto any article they please and changed the words to relate to the article. And people have been spreading it further just becasue it has a reference. Do we know for sure that they depicted ducks often in their art? Do we even know if there even was ducks in the area at the time? 'm gonna remove the text for now, but it can be replaced if you can find if the source is actually true or not. I believe toad and frogs, but ducks and crabs? Being significantly depicted in the art is one thing, but having one carving of a crab is another. Spawn Man05:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay, you haven't responded to above, but I've got some great news. I just went to the library and went through my book shelf and came out with 7 books that can help with the Vampire article. I'd love if you could leave me alone with the article for a day or two or three. Since I'm able to help, maybe the vampire article can be our first official collaboration? Not so good news for Kertesz though - he's had an oppose on him, although I am certain I've fixed it. Could you swing by the FAC and see if the guy's opposing for what I think he's opposing for; page numbers in references? I did this ages ago, but it seems he hasn't noticed. Anyway, I've come up with a check list so we can get our collaboration structured and underway. Here it goes:
1) Close Kertesz and Red Cockatoo FACs.
2) Select one article from either my list of articles or your list (Let's just select Vampire since we're both keen).
3) If we think we can get it to GA, work on it until then. If we think we can get it to FA, work on it until then.
4) Wait for FAC or GAC to close and then repeat from 2).
Does that suit? I'm rearing to go, so please say yes.... Anyway, I'm kinda tired, so I might not start on vampire right now, but will definitely soon... I took my Kertesz books back to the library and found that they were overdue by two days, due to me reading the wrong date. However, I managed to get them waved by sweet talking the librarian. I'm telling ya, I'm such a good lair I could get a Jew to eat pork. Speaking of pork, that article could be good to edit. Anyway, get back to me. I'll be drifting around the computer, but I'll be watching the All Blacks at the rugby world cup... :) Spawn Man06:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC) P.S. And I've also made a list of articles at User:Spawn Man/To Do List. It's only the stuff under our collaboration heading, not the other stuff.
On second thought, Vampire is in much worse condition than I had previously thought! It'll take me at least a week to rewrite things so we can have a workable draft. Gimme some time, but I promise you won't be disappointed. Why don't you work on lion for a bit? Vampire has a lot of prose issues, the sections were all messed up, the citations are terribly thin and it sounds like a bunch of OR. Seriosuly, I'm gonna have my work cut out for me, but as you saw with Spider IPC, I'll get through it eventually. When I'm at this stage, I work better alone, but definitely after I've done the rewrite, we're green light. Here's my mind map of what I'm gonna do basically: 1 - Delete all the nonsense OR. 2 - Copyedit rewrite top to bottom (Sorry if a couple of you edits get caught in the crossfire...). 3 - Merge my info into the article. 4 - Cite whatever I can. 5 - Finish and work on it with you. Bear with me (Sorry if I'm coming across bossy), but this article really needs it and I don't want to accidentally delete one of your edits you might make during the rewrite. Cheers, Spawn Man08:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I was begininng to get worried about your whereabouts Cas! ;) Seriously though, thanks for leaving vampire with me for a while. I'm glad you liked my list! :) How are we going to go about nominating articles though for FAC? Will we go by who has the most edits to the article, has contributed the most or who's list it was on? Or you could give them all to me... ;) Muauauhaha. Anyway, I'm done for the night. As I said, the All Blacks are on at midnight and I have to get up early, so I'm gonna be TIRED with a capital S. Anywah, I've briefly reordered the sections at Vampire, but I'm sure they'll change once I've sorted through the rubbish and expanded. Phew, g'nite. :) Spawn Man09:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, you young turks - so full of enthusiasm and energy. Yes and no. I wouldn't say I'm 100% back but I am certainly getting back up to speed.
It's funny how these things happen. Having wikisourced A Sketch of the Vegetation of the Swan River Colony, all I really wanted was to put in a {{wikisourcepar}} link to it from B. prionotes. But the taxonomy section needed some work, I overdid that, and now I can't stop until I've given the whole article a once-over. For now I'll be happy to push it to B-class though. Too many other things on, not enough time.
Gnangarra put B. telmatiaea on hold until he can get some more pics. Other than that, it is ready to go IMO.
I'll let you know when I'm ready for another FAC push. I think we agreed on B. spinulosa next, but I don't mind switching if other stuff pushes ahead between now and then.
Well, I'm sure as heck not getting anything done while I'm sitting here chin-wagging with you.... I was reading The Dryandras the other day, and they spend a handful of pages talking about the history of the introduction of dryandras into European horticulture. I confess it never really occurred to me that this was interesting - who cares about a lot of rich toffs with nothing better to do than play botanist, swapping seeds and plants with their fellow toffs, while all the while employing gardeners to do the dirty work in their greenhouses? But The Dryandras managed to make this material interesting.
A lot of this history is documented in the horticultural magazines of the day - magazines like Curtis's Botanical Magazine and Edwards's Botanical Register. Since these were written for rich toffs playing botanist, rather than real botanists, they often included beautiful colour plates. For example there is this one of B. integrifolia, from Volume 54 of Curtis, the accompanying text of which states who first sent seed to Europe, who introduced it into European (or British at any rate) horticulture, and where it is first known to have flowered.
The image certainly merits uploading, and the text merits transcribing to Wikisource. Our mutual friend Cygnis insignis is undertaking this arduous task, and I shan't interfere. But I have to wonder whether, and to what extent, some of this material really ought to be worked into our B. integrifolia article, which is, after all, featured. I'm inclined to say it should, but at the moment I don't really know how.
You did briefly, when you thanked me for this, I have been meaning to try my hand at the swampy one. Lovely old thing - it will deserve some attention when I'm done hashing it up. I have actually been toying with stubs using texts from Curtis's, I'm too embarrassed to point them out yet. I will let you know what I can make of it, the short text has usually got a snippet or two for wikipedia space. I have found the writing of Dr. Sims is pretty good, a lovely preface to his departed friend Curtis. On the subject of images, I happened to find a couple more 'Dryandra' last night. Let me know if you have a particular one you want transcribed from Curtis's. I will reserve my views on the merits of botanical illustration, but it is interesting to note that James Edward Smith saw none. One illustrator did little to endear himself, by what became known as Sowerby's Botany :) Regards, Cygnisinsignis23:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
The joke's on me. I said I wanted to push it to B-class. After all this, I just went to the talk page to promote it, and found it has been rated B for over a year. :-D Anyhow, I'm done with it for now. Hesperian02:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I've rewritten up until "Common traits in folklore" - JSYK. See if you like what I've done so far; contact me if you think something should be incorporated or added, but it's basically been summary stuff so far - I'm just gonna get into the topic stuff soon. Kinda tired, so might do it tomorrow (All Blacks won... Yay! They'll beat Ozzie easily...) ;) Anyway, Spawn Man07:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Erm, I haven't actually rewritten the "Common traits in folklore" - only up until there. As I said, your edits might get deleted/rewritten, but I suppose you can rewrite them from the history after I'm done. The article's still an active mine zone, so don't worry about the end result; you'll be impressed. Anyway, You can add that sciency bit into the "Natural propagations for beliefs" section after I'm done rewriting the article, since I'm not aquainted with that subject. So yeah, gimme a few more days. I've still got over 3 quarters left as well as adding my own cited stuff. What would be helpful would be for you to find some free use images on vampires. As well as that, possibly add anything you want to the article's talk page and I'll try and incorporate it in during the part when I add my text after the rewrite. It's late here, so I'll start tomorrow. I've been only semi active since it's the weekend, but I'll get to normal over the week. Cheers, Spawn Man11:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I see you've flown in with a little one before Lion. (Goodness, you've got a lot of sources on Lion, although I'm slightly concerned by the age of the books.) I've left a couple of comments on the Cockatoo but it looks good all round.
Once Titan is done, I'll likely turn to Leopard. I figure I'll alternate between an animal and an astronomical body for the rest of the year. Titan is fully sourced now, incidentally. Marskell13:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Cas. I further commented on the Cockatoo.
I assumed from the way you'd talked about it that Schaller is canonical. "Is he still cited in papers today?" is the main question, so OK. At this point, you're far more familiar with all of the sourcing on Lion than I am, so it would actually be time-wasting for me to deeply audit it. Maybe do a PR before FAC and I'll just do my bullet points then. Marskell19:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Your edit about free range hippos, stirred my deepest, darkest desire on Misplaced Pages -- to create the page Pablo Escobar's hippos. Have you ever read about this? A hippo critical situation, LA Times. I'd never create the page... the deletionists would go bonkers! But I can dream, oh yes! PS I think you're right on the white rhinos. Wait until the article takes better shape, but no reason to turn the subspecies into redirects so early in the process. And Asiatic Lion shows that a subspecies article can definitely have merit. I've been a bit distracted lately from the beasties. --JayHenry16:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Grrr! The guy's still freakin' opposing - despite the fact that all of the freakin' un-numbered cites are supported by freakin' cites which are freakin' numbered! Therefore, what difference do they freakin' make to the freakin' article for freak sake!? Honestly. I'm gonna freakin' try and get the freakin' books back before I freakin' lose my freakin' mind. Though, I'll be freakin' lucky if I freakin' even freakin' do. He hasn't even freakin' looked at the freakin' facts and by the freakin' time I'll be freakin' able to get the freakin' books back for freaks freakin' sake, the freakin' FAC will be freakin' over. Freakin' hell. I feel a little freakin' bit freakin' better now getting all those freakin' freakin's out. Sorry to wind you in like this, but I'm losing patientence for a problem which isn't even that big a freakin' deal. I'm gonna try and start on Vampire again, but I freakin' sick yesterday. Sorry, but I'm just really freakin' annoyed at the moment. I worked so hard on that article and I spent freakin' ages citing it and right after I give the freakin' books back, he opposes. Freakin' Spawn Man Freakin' 00:51, 11th of Freakin' September 2007 (Freakin' UTC)
I'm up for Werewolf after this, but I don't know if I like the whole pair of articles idea. I'd prefer to just pick one from each list alternatively and if we feel like it, maybe pick 2 of the same genre. Anyway, Vampire's gonna take me a long time, since I spent most of today editing Kertesz to get rid of the opposes - it looks better now though. Anyway, after Vampire, I'd prefer to do something different and then pick werewolf. It's not as if it's going anywhere quickly. Cheers, Spawn Man03:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC). P.S. You don't need to bold things on my talk page, just put quotation marks or something. :)
I sense some man-love going on here. ;) Good for you Cas, about time you went on a date. Hehehe... Anyway, I'm just about losing my mind here, and would really appreciate your help. The guy now wants a critics section; I've given the books back as I've already said a million times and I wouldn't know where to start anyway without sounding POV ("Kertesz was great because...") ;). If you give me an idea of what I need to do, maybe I can do it. It would really help if you, say, laid out a skeleton of what I need to write and then I could fill it in etc or something?? I'm losing it JSYK, and I'm spending waay to much time cleaning up this guy's copyedits on the article page where he deletes vital information and cites, when I should be working on Vampire. Please help... Cheers, Spawn Man00:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Cas, I don't suppose you can dig up a photo of B. victoriae? The article has two images, but both are intrinsic to the taxonomic history narrative, and I am loathe to remove either into the taxobox. By the way, you might like to have a read of the taxonomy section there; there's an interesting story there that you won't have read in anything of George's. Hesperian13:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I thought the same (re: baxteri). But Bentham gives them both as victoriae in Flora Australiensis, and if I trust anyone, I trust him. Hesperian23:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Curiouser and curiouser! I misread those sources - it is only the later seed that is attributed to Drummond. To be flowering in 1835 that seed must have reached England by 1832 at the latest. But Drummond didn't start sending plants and seed back to England until conscripted by Mangles to do so in 1835, and B. speciosa is not in Meissner's 1852 list of species collected by Drummond. As far as I know, Baxter only visited the south coast. I don't think Fraser went further north than the Swan River. Molloy never strayed far from Augusta. Hügel didn't reach Australia until the end of 1833; too late. Where oh where did those seeds come from? Perhaps they wereB. baxteri; maybe that's why George has ignored the whole episode. Gosh this is exciting. Hesperian00:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Maahes and Dedun
Sorry Cas, my limited home library resources don't cover these. I looked over the articles and they are fascinating. I wish they gave references. They sound spot on, I don't doubt them, it's just I'd love to look at the primary source texts. Maahes has two 2006 publications cited at the link at the article, and an image of an artifact is reproduced there too. I've read a little about Nubia, and what is said about the relationship between Egypt and Nubia fits.
You've aroused my curiosity though. I've just got back on line after a failed hard disk tragedy. I'll poke around a bit to see if I can find the standard sources covering these lion gods. I'll do something about Daniel also. There are only 12 chapters in the book of Daniel, and only one deals with the lion den. Alastair Haines16:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Cas, Encyclopedia Mythica has a short entry on Maahes, written by Stephanie Cass. It reads as follows.
“
Maahes
A somewhat obscure leonine god who may be of foreign origin, Maahes (whose name has been translated to mean "True Before Her") was worshipped in both Bubastis (or, in Egyptian, Per-Bast, the cult center of Bast), Leontopolis (also the cult center of Tefnut and Shu as twin lions), and especially Upper Egypt (perhaps through confusion with the Nubian lion-god Apedemak). Maahes is regarded in later times to be the son of Bastet and Ptah in Memphis.
Maahes (also called "Lord of the Massacre") punished the transgressors of Ma'at and was represented as either a lion or a man with a lion's head and a knife. His protection was invoked over the innocent, and he is sometimes regarded as a son of the triad in Memphis alongside Nefertem and occasionally Imhotep. The Greeks pronounced his name as either Mihos or Miysis.
”
A much more satisfactory article is available at AncientEgyptOnline. This includes a reproduction of the name Maahes in heiroglyphics, and a reproduction of an image of Maahes in the classical Egyptian style for deities.
There is also a write-up at a peculiar but impressive site devoted to an American lady who has revived an eclectic version of ancient Egyptian mythology as her own religious movement (dare I say personal "cult"). She has done a LOT of research, but gives it her own harmonizing "spin".
Leontopolis is extremely relevant to any discussion of human-lion contact. If any culture has come close to domesticating lions and incorporating them into daily life, it would be this city (or at least, that is its reputation). Mind you, how do you define the difference between a culture with temples to various animals, and our own modern zoo, which builds a "temple city" of shrines to them all, lol.
What exactly do you need regarding Maahes? The heiroglyphics of the name can be reproduced in Wiki mark-up. Images of artifacts ought to be public domain (so long as they are "scientific" not "creative"). Alastair Haines00:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Aesop indeed! Translations from Greek tend to be excellent in the main. The language is well known, and manuscript copies and citations tend to be good. Much good Greek literature was also translated into Latin too, of course. Other ancient writings don't always have such a tracable history, and sometimes the vocabulary of the languages themselves rests on much more limited evidence. Egypt has left us more documentation than most cultures, and its language survived for millenia. There's enough around now to teach Egyptian along with Greek and Latin in "Classics"! ;) Alastair Haines01:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Lion + Wolf
I left a bullet list on Talk:Lion in advance of an FAC. Kudos again for all the work. I'll continue a ce to the bottom. (I often think these big pages suffer from topofthepage-itis—almost too many edits to the LEAD and following, and not enough attention elsewhere).
Are you still up for FARing with Gray Wolf? (Absolutely no problem if you're not, of course.) I don't think it's quite there. Compare it, in fact, to Lion, an animal of similar profile. The LEAD is insufficient; the ToC tips toward overwhelming; the sourcing is certainly good, but there's info that needs it. But it is information rich and (in the glass half-full sense) you could say it's almost there. Marskell20:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Re:Barnstar:
Gee thanks Cas for the barnstar - What added to the surprise was when I saw that the article was now a GA candidate ! So thanks for the award, totally undeserved considering I'm taking soo long with Vampire - I swear I keep on getting distracted. You seem busy though with Lion etc, so I hope you don't mind...? *Gulp* I also got another Vampire book, which is quite good - I should have enough material to revamp (Excuse the pun!) the whole article thoughroughly now. I am enjoying our collaboration so far Cas, even if it does consist of you waiting around for my lazy arse to rewrite articles whilst you nominate articles I've never worked on for FAC. ;) I swear, I'm gonna put the effort in - there's just been a lot of stuff going on in RL too, so bear with me. Again, thanks for the barnstar pal - Regards, Spawn Man03:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I have only 3 which are solely on Vampires, another 4 which have substanstial mentions and one which has only a passing mention which can be used to cite a single fact etc. So a total of 8, 3 of which are from the library and will have to go back later. Spawn Man03:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
RFA Thanks
Click there to open your card! → → →
Dearest Casliber,
Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed successfully with 96 supports, 1 oppose, and 3 neutrals. No matter if you !voted support, oppose, neutral, I thank you for taking the time to drop by. I'm a new admin remember, so if you have any suggestions feel free to inform me of them. I would like to give a special shout out to Hirohisat, Wizardman, and Husond, for there original co-nominations. Thank you once again and good day.
This RFA thanks was inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks. So unfortunatly this is not entirely my own design.
Baratay on lions
Okay, so far I have a description of the relevance and importance of lions and other big cats in early seraglios and menageries (16th-17th century), as well as their uses in blood fight, and commentaries on the symbolism of the lion hunter in the 19th century, but I'm not sure whether the combat stuff should go in "lion-baiting", and whether the symbolism should be placed in Cultural depictions of lions. Any recommendations? Circeus01:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
OK - given how stubby the baiting section is, any more info on fighting would be good to go there as it segues into the lion-baiting material there. Place it and we can see how it scans - if it comes across as really clunky then maybe into the bit with other menagerie stuff.
As far as the symbolism of lions in menageries - I think it is also best to put with other material on zoos etc. as it relates mainly to the importance of these animals in said entities. also, the cultural depictions bit is about to get a little bigger (I forgot Aesop...) cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs)
On second thoughts, it doesn't go well with "lion-baiting", since baiting AFAICT specifically involve the use of dogs, while we're talking about animals such as bulls, elephants, big cats, bears, horses, bulls, and even cows and donkeys facing each others. Circeus02:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey Cas. I suppose this is becoming a monthly request, but could you spare ten minutes for kp or rm on some of the articles kicking around the bottom of FAR. I've let it pile up. (I'm still leaning back and forth on Gray Wolf and will probably give it a close read tonight.) Cheers, Marskell09:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Photos
Dropped a few photos on my user page if you would like to use them. They are for the most part good, but not perfect as I am still getting used to my new photo gear. I expect a lot more quanity and quality shortly. I've had the IDs double checked by a few poeple already but feel free to inquire about details if you think any of the photos look off.
Yeah, I have Romanian ancestry - is this the awkward bit where you tell me you do? If yes, leave a note on rowiki so I can demonstrate my lack of ability to speak the language :) Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 05:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, the 'must have a linking article' criterion is silly, when pushed. Are we really going to need to take Panthera to FA? We need a competent page on the genus, certainly, but I don't see why we need an FA if all the species (by far more widely hit) are FA. Anyhow, I've started Leopard, but the page basically needs rebuilding. Marskell22:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes, it can be. I don't mean otherwise. I just wonder why, for the sake of FT criteria, we should make that a priority, if the four species articles are already FA. We should make the genus a competent page, but the genus itself is not the primary presentation concern. Put another way: I'm going to get hit by a bus one day Cas, and I need to decide in the meantime what's worth attention :). Species articles themselves, I think. Marskell23:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I should've said "hit by the proverbial bus one day" to be less prophetic and morbid. Or, perhaps, "carried by the valkyries into the great mead hall in the sky." That wouldn't be so bad.
The MoS boondoggle is tying me down. Haven't edited much of anything in the mainspace today. 20:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Marskell
Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. In the future, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Ødipus09:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The reason I am making many small edits is that I am copyediting an article in an advanced stage heading toward FAC. I am not the main contributor and want to highlight to that person the changes I am making and why (well I did initially but later gave up) - I generally do this as some others are online who were asked to edit and I hate losing stuff in an edit conflict. cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 09:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
We actually edit conflicted while both trying to move the conservation section! Talk about timing. Some bits about captive disease might have to return to the "captivity" section, though.What you think? Circeus04:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Hahaha - someone just opened a durian in the building and I've fled to a computer....I have the health threats on my clipbaord as we speak. If it is all in the health section we can reduce more. Of this:
The main threats to captive lions, in addition to general disease affecting all felines, such as feline panleukopenia, comes from recently known viruses such as CDV (canine distemper virus) and FIV (feline immunodeficiency virus), both of which may severely affect population viability. While FIV, which is similar to HIV is not known to adversely affect lions, its effect in domestic cats are worrisome enough that the Species Survival Plan recommends systematic testing. FIV occurs with high to endemic frequency in several wild lion populations, but is mostly absent of Asiatic and Namibian lions.
Sorry I haven't been as active lately - I've been really sick and I've only just managed to check my talk page. I feel like I'm being left out with all your FA noms, but I hope I'll be back soon to finish Vampire so I can nom it... Anyway, I'm feeling a bit better so should have more time later on in the week. Regards, Spawn Man08:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, I think Tiger is going to be more or less as difficult as Lion. They're of similar exposure, and both need citations into the three digits. Leopard, like Cougar, ought to be about 60 to 90, IMO. (Although searches aren't turning up as much as I'd hoped.) Tiger is in better shape, definitely, but sometimes it's actually easier to do a page up from nothing than to wade into one that's partly done, partly not.
In any case, I'll likely be taking an extensive trip round Germany in October and I want to get something on FAC prior. So I cheated again: Tau Ceti, hopefully with RJHall. On the one hand, pages that are in middling shape out to be the main focus; on the other, cherrypicking pages that are already good isn't a bad idea. They may just need one last big heave. Marskell11:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Casliber, with ref to Durova's talk page - please tell me there's no such thing as wiki-eavesdropping! You can easily see that I'm new here - one of the huge attractions for me is that so far as I have found, EVERYTHING in Misplaced Pages is recorded, archived, and open to inspection. There are definitely places where things have been closed off, users deleted, diff's not available, "redacted" if you will. But all those instances I have seen are referenced by some other trace, so I know they have at least occurred. If there are truly black areas of WP, please don't tell me Santa.
At my point of development I would rather call it gathering, learning, integrating - but I hope that I can be bold whenever and stick my nose in whenever.
As to the tool I describe, no promises, if you wish I will notify you when I have further descriptions of same conecpt on my talk page. I enjoy algorithms and lexical analysis. Any input you may have as to analysis tools, you can put on my talk under Tool question for now. Mayhap I have identified a need which I can fulfill :) No promises. Franamax12:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Letter is script and looks like a Russian и.
Cite error: The named reference zoos_encyclopedia was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Done
