Hi Slate Weasel! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Gestrid (talk).
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Slate Weasel. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi, Slate Weasel. During the review of Erettopterus, we have come to the conclusion that E. grandis should be included. If you are so kind to modify it, I remind you that it measured 250 cm. SuperΨDro 12:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
First of all, thanks for adding it! It happens that a recent journal of 2015 shows this size as valid, and we suppose it is true, and therefore, we decided that the species should be included in the size chart. SuperΨDro 16:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 8
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Brachiosaurus, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Pterygoid and Quadrate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Graphic Designer's Barnstar
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
For your excellent, vigorous and tireless work in creating size diagrams for extinct animals, in particular the eurypterids. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! I am working on creating a size comparison for one genus in every eurypterid family, so I still have plenty of work left to do! I look forwards to more eurypterid GAs! --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:07, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Graphic Designer's Barnstar 2: The Sequel
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
I see somebody already left you one of these but you deserve another one for a fantastic job on palaeontological scale diagrams! Also, nice work on those for Deinocheirus and giant Ornithopods, they're two of your best ones yet. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Wow! I'm glad you like the giant ornithopods, especially since I'm not fully sure if they've passed yet. Great work on spinosaurids (and scale diagrams, too), it's nice to see Suchomimus get some love, as it's one of the most complete. It'll be nice to get a good topic on dinosaurs, seeing how Tyrannosauridae failed (and, "unfortunately", a bunch of new species got described. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 20:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
The Photographer's Barnstar
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The Photographer's Barnstar
Thanks for your contributions to the eurypterid articles! You deserve more of these. SuperΨDro 22:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Slate Weasel. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Thanks for the copyedits! I do have one question, however: what does the "use mdy dates" tag mean? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:55, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Slate Weasel It's good practice to keep all the date formats in an article consistent. I found several that were not so fixed them to agree with the format of the majority of dates. Adding the month/day/year tag indicates to other editors the dates should all be formatted this way (m/d/y/). Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation! Will remember to date things more consistently in the future! --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Puertasaurus 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 PaleoGeekSquared -- PaleoGeekSquared (talk) 19:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The article Puertasaurus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Puertasaurus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of PaleoGeekSquared -- PaleoGeekSquared (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
DYK for Puertasaurus
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On 31 January 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Puertasaurus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Puertasaurus(illustration shown), one of the largest dinosaurs, is known from only four vertebrae? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Puertasaurus. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Puertasaurus), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hi! Would you take issue if I made some minor modifications to your two Antarctosaurus Size Charts? Basically, because A. wichmannianus is so complicated I want to move the silhouette slightly away from Bonitasaura, to be a little more generic (Bonitasaura seems to be coming out closer to lognkosauria whereas the braincase of A.wichmannianus, at least, might be a nemegtosaur). Seen here: [1] I also want to slim down the legs on A.giganteus. Of the few bones we have are two very slender femurs, which have been noted as such in the literature. The current diagram looks somewhat like Opisthocoelicaudia in terms of robustness, which happens to be a bit of an oddball in that department. I've also updated that diagram to your new standard human figure/grey floor. See here: [2]Steveoc 86 (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Changes look great! Feel free to upload anytime! Antarctosaurus is definitely very weird. My "A." gianteus is very poorly done, and wasn't even based on anything, I'd been wondering what to do with it for quite awhile. Thanks for the edits! --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
By the way, perhaps the box and nonbold black text key could replace the current bold text in the latter diagram? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 01:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I can do that. Do you prefer the grid in front of or behind the dino? To be honest, the update to giganteus isn't 100% based on any specific titanosaur either. With just a couple of limb bones to go off and with most studies being like, 'it's very big titanosaur', I don't feel comfortable basing it on anything too specific. Interestingly, Notocolossus is from the same formation as giganteus, it's possible they are synonymous, but unfortunately, there is no overlapping material. Steveoc 86 (talk) 10:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Probably in front of the dino for consistency. My old giganteus wasn't 100% based on any sauropod, so your new version is still easily an improvement :) . Hmm... Notocolossus is proving to have the potential of being more awesome than any of us ever expected! --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:54, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
No the skull does match
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I've explained my reasoning more thoroughly on the image review page. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Size Charts
Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi! May i ask wich program do you use to make your charts, they appear to be really clean and aesthetic and also what do you think about quality of my charts? I just started to make them and just want to know a few tipsKoprX (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)KoprX
I make my size comparisons using a program called Inkscape. It is completely free (and freely licensed, too), and uses a file format called SVG (Scaleable Vector Graphics). Hypothetically, an SVG will retain its quality no matter how much you scale it, as it doesn't use pixels, which is why they appear to be really clean. For drawing in Inscape, pressing "b" on your keyboard activates a polygon-drawing tool. "F2" activates the path editing tool, which allows you to edit the polygon and smooth out the corners. "F1" is the standard move tool. Hopefully this helps. User:Steveoc 86 and User:PaleoGeekSquared also make size charts with SVG, so they may also be able to answer some questions. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for all advices, this is really great programKoprX (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)KoprX
Carcharodontosaur Size Charts
Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Hey Slate Weasel. i am creating a chart of carnosaur silhouettes, if you have any spare time would it be possible for you to create a silhouettes of giganotosaurus, mapusaurus and carcharodontosaurus showing only their largest size and colored green. thanks Dinomike123--Dinomike123 (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I actually already have created & scaled silhouettes for these three taxa. Giganotosaurus is also already in green, and should be ready (I updated it this month). I also have Carcharodontosaurus and Mapusaurus, but they're going to get new heads soon. I can upload the silhouette files separately, too, if this would help. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
hey slate weasel, i saw the silhouettes and they are excellent, i have already downloaded them because i like them so much but they show different specimens, would it be possible for silhouettes that show only the very largest specimens known and colored green for mapusaurus and carcharodontsaurus.thanks mike--Dinomike123 (talk) 10:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Just to let you know I recently remade both Slate Weasel's Giganotosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus to better match their proportions. You to can see them in my size comparison.KoprX (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)KoprX
Hi i just ended work on theropod size charts and since i was working on your's carcharodontosauridae silhouettes do you think i should also update File:Carcharodontosaurid scale.svg? I know you was working on this so I don't want to interfere, but i have done minor improvements to three biggest taxa.KoprX (talk) 10:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)KoprX
Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hey Slate Weasel, just wondering about your further plans for Argentinosaurus. Do you need any help with it? If you wish, we could work on it together to get it to GA level soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
I had kind of forgotten about it, to be completely honest. It definitely would be nice to come back to it though, as it's one of the most popular dinosaur articles that we have, although I'm rather busy right now, so I won't be able to do much until mid-June, but I'd be pleased to do it then. I will have to update my skeletal sometime (insufficient cartilage, apparently), too. By the way, how close are we to getting Confuciusornis (I finally can spell it correctly!) to GA? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good! Let me know if you need any help then. I have some additional books containing useful summaries, if you are interested. Regarding Confuciusornis, I think it is approximately on 70 %. There are still many small things and papers that need to be incorporated. In the next couple of days I plan to do a more extensive search to find out what is missing, and post a new to-do that would primarily contain many minor jobs that are relatively quick to do (but that still need to be done, and which become a huge task if a single person has to do all of those alone). It would be highly appreciated if you want to take over the one or the other (it certainly has time until mid-June!). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
what do you think?
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
so what do you think?--Bubblesorg (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, it definitely is better than the previous one, but there are still some issues: the eye is too big to fit inside of the sclerotic ring, the tip of the lower jaw is still too square, tyrannosauroid-grade filaments probably couldn't have been green. You should definitely get this checked at WP:DINOART before adding it to the article. Also, the image could use a bit more shading. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
May 2019 Tree of Life Newsletter
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On 23 May, user Prometheus720 created a talk page post, "Revamp of Wikiproject Biology--Who is In?". In the days since, WP:BIOL has been bustling with activity, with over a dozen editors weighing in on this discussion, as well as several others that have subsequently spawned. An undercurrent of thought is that WP:BIOL has too many subprojects, preventing editors from easily interacting and stopping a "critical mass" of collaboration and engagement. Many mergers and consolidations of subprojects have been tentatively listed, with a consolidation of WikiProjects Genetics + Molecular and Cell Biology + Computational Biology + Biophysics currently in discussion. Other ideas being aired include updating old participants lists, redesigning project pages to make them more user-friendly, and clearly identifying long- and short-term goals.
Editor Spotlight: These editors want you to write about dinosaurs
Editors FunkMonk and Jens Lallensack had a very fruitful month, collaborating to bring two dinosaur articles to GA and then nominating them both for FA. They graciously decided to answer some questions for the first ToL Editor Spotlight, giving insight to their successful collaborations, explaining why you should collaborate with them, and also sharing some tidbits about their lives off-Wikipedia.
1) Enwebb: How long have you two been collaborating on articles?
Jens Lallensack: I started in the German Wikipedia in 2005 but switched to the English Wikipedia because of its very active dinosaur project. My first major collaboration with FunkMonk was on Heterodontosaurus in 2015.
FunkMonk: Yeah, we had interacted already on talk pages and through reviewing each other's articles, and at some point I was thinking of expanding Heterodontosaurus, and realised Jens had already written the German Wikipedia version, so it seemed natural to work together on the English one. Our latest collaboration was Spinophorosaurus, where by another coincidence, I had wanted to work on that article for the WP:Four Award, and it turned out that Jens had a German book about the expedition that found the dinosaur, which I wouldn't have been able to utilise with my meagre German skills. Between those, we also worked on Brachiosaurus, a wider Dinosaur Project collaboration between several editors.
2) Enwebb: Why dinosaurs?
JL: Because of the huge public interest in them. But dinosaurs are also highly interesting from a scientific point of view: key evolutionary innovations emerged within this group, such as warm-bloodedness, gigantism, and flight. Dinosaur research is, together with the study of fossil human remains, the most active field in paleontology. New scientific techniques and approaches tend to get developed within this field. Dinosaur research became increasingly interdisciplinary, and now does not only rely on various fields of biology and geology, but also on chemistry and physics, among others. Dinosaurs are therefore ideal to convey scientific methodology to the general public.
FM: As outlined above, dinosaurs have been described as a "gateway to science"; if you learn about dinosaurs, you will most likely also learn about a lot of scientific fields you would not necessarily be exposed to otherwise. On a more personal level, having grown up with and being influenced by various dinosaur media, it feels pretty cool to help spread knowledge about these animals, closest we can get to keeping them alive.
3) Enwebb: Why should other editors join you in writing articles related to paleontology? Are you looking to attract new editors, or draw in experienced editors from other areas of Wikipedia?
JL: Because we are a small but active and helpful community. Our Dinosaur collaboration, one of the very few active open collaborations in Wikipedia, makes high-level writing on important articles easier and more fun. Our collaboration is especially open to editors without prior experience in high-level writing. But we do not only write articles: several WikiProject Dinosaur participants are artists who do a great job illustrating the articles, and maintain an extensive and very active image review system. In fact, a number of later authors started with contributing images.
FM: Anyone who is interested in palaeontology is welcome to try writing articles, and we would be more than willing to help. I find that the more people that work on articles simultaneously with me, the more motivation I get to write myself. I am also one of those editors who started out contributing dinosaur illustrations and making minor edits, and only began writing after some years. But when I got to it, it wasn't as intimidating as I had feared, and I've learned a lot in the process. For example anatomy; if you know dinosaur anatomy, you have a very good framework for understanding the anatomy of other tetrapod animals, including humans.
4) Enwebb: Between the two of you, you have over 300 GA reviews. FunkMonk, you have over 250 of those. What keeps you coming back to review more articles?
FM: One of the main reasons I review GANs is to learn more about subjects that seem interesting (or which I would perhaps not come across otherwise). There are of course also more practical reasons, such as helping an article on its way towards FAC, to reduce the GAN backlog, and to "pay back" when I have a nomination up myself. It feels like a win-win situation where I can be entertained by interesting info, while also helping other editors get their nominations in shape, and we'll end up with an article that hopefully serves to educate a lot of people (the greater good).
JL: Because I enjoy reading Wikipedia articles and like to learn new things. In addition, reviews give me the opportunity to have direct contact with the authors, and help them to make their articles even better. This is quite rewarding for me personally. But I also review because I consider our GA and FA system to be of fundamental importance for Wikipedia. When I started editing Wikipedia (the German version), the article promotion reviews motivated me and improved my writing skills a lot. Submitting an article for review requires one to get serious and take additional steps to bring the article to the best quality possible. GAs and FAs are also a good starting point for readers, and may motivate them to become authors themselves.
5) Enwebb: What are your editing preferences? Any scripts or gadgets you find invaluable?
FM: One script that everyone should know about is the duplink highlight tool. It will show duplinks within the intro and body of a given article separately, and it seems a lot of people still don't know about it, though they are happy when introduced to it. I really liked the citationbot too (since citation consistency is a boring chore to me), but it seems to be blocked at the moment due to some technical issues.
JL: I often review using the Wikipedia Beta app on my smartphone, as it allows me to read without needing to sit in front of the PC. For writing, I find the reference management software Zotero invaluable, as it generates citation templates automatically, saving a lot of time.
Editor's note: I downloaded Zotero and tried it for the first time and think it is a very useful tool. More here.
6) Enwebb: What would surprise the ToL community to learn about your life off-wiki?
FM: Perhaps that I have no background in natural history/science, but work with animation and games. But fascination with and knowledge of nature and animals is actually very helpful when designing and animating characters and creatures, so it isn't that far off, and I can actually use some of the things I learn while writing here for my work (when I wrote the Dromaeosauroides article, it was partially to learn more about the animal for a design-school project).
JL: That I am actually doing research on dinosaurs. Though I avoid writing about topics I publish research on, my Wikipedia work helps me to keep a good general overview over the field, and quite regularly I can use what I learned while writing for Wikipedia for my research.
Within the Tree of Life and its many subprojects, there is an abundance of stubs. Welcome to Wikipedia, what's new, right? However, based on all wikiprojects listed (just over two thousand), the Tree of Life project is worse off in average article quality than most. Based on the concept of relative WikiWork (the average number of "steps" needed to have a project consisting of all featured articles (FAs), where stub status → FA consists of six steps), only seven projects within the ToL have an average rating of "start class" or better. Many projects, particularly those involving invertebrates, hover at an average article quality slightly better than a stub. With relative WikiWorks of 5.98 each, WikiProject Lepidoptera and WikiProject Beetles have the highest relative WikiWork of any project. Given that invertebrates are incredibly speciose, it may not surprise you that many articles about them are lower quality. WikiProject Beetles, for example, has over 20 times more articles than WikiProject Cats. Wikipedia will always be incomplete, so we should take our relatively low WikiWork as motivation to write more articles that are also better in quality.
1) Enwebb: How did you come to edit articles about organisms and taxonomic groups?
Nessie: The main force, then and now, driving me to create or edit articles is thinking "Why isn't there an article on that on Wikipedia?" Either I'll read about some rarely-sighted creature in the deep sea or find something new on iNaturalist and want to learn more. First stop (surprise!) is Wikipedia, and many times there is just a stub or no page at all. Sometimes I just add the source that got me to the article, not sometimes I go deep and try to get everything from the library or online journals and put it all in an article. The nice thing about taxa is the strong precedent that all accepted extant taxa are notable, so one does not need to really worry about doing a ton of research and having the page get removed. I was super worried about this as a new editor: I still really dislike conflict so if I can avoid it I do. Anyway, the most important part is stitching an article in to the rest of Wikipedia: Linking all the jargon, taxonomers, pollinators, etc., adding categories, and putting in the correct WikiProjects. Recently I have been doing more of the stitching-in stuff with extant articles. The last deep-dive article I made was Karuka at the end of last year, which is a bit of a break for me. I guess it's easier to do all the other stuff on my tablet while watching TV.
2) Enwebb: Many editors in the ToL are highly specialized on a group of taxa. A look at your recently created articles includes much diversity, though, with viruses, bacteria, algae, and cnidarians all represented—are there any commonalities for the articles you work on? Would you say you're particularly interested in certain groups?
Nessie: I was a nerd from a time when that would get you beat up, so I like odd things and underdogs. I also avoid butting heads, so not only do I find siphonophores and seaweeds fascinating I don't have to worry about stepping on anyone's toes. I go down rabbitholes where I start writing an article like Mastocarpus papillatus because I found some growing on some rocks, then in my research I see it is parasitized by Pythium porphyrae, which has no article, and how can that be for an oomycete that oddly lives in the ocean and also attacks my tasty nori. So then I wrote that article and that got me blowing off the dust on other Oomycota articles, encouraged by the pull of propagating automatic taxoboxes. Once you've done the taxonomy template for the genus, well then you might as well do all the species now that the template is taken care of for them too. and so on until I get sucked in somewhere else. I think it's good to advocate for some of these 'oddball' taxa as it makes it easier for editors to expand their range from say plants to the pathogenic microorganisms of their favorite plant.
My favorite clades though, It's hard to pick for a dilettante like me. I like working on virus taxonomy, but I can't think of a specific virus species that I am awed by. Maybe Tulip breaking virus for teaching us economics or Variola virus for having so many smallpox deities, one of which was popularly sung about by Desi Arnaz and then inspired the name of a cartoon character who was then misremembered and then turned into a nickname for Howard Stern's producer Gary Dell'Abate. Sorry, really had to share that chain, but for a species that's not a staple food it probably has the most deities. But anyway, for having the most species that wow me, I love a good fungus or algae, but that often is led by my stomach. Also why I seem to research so many plant articles. You can't eat siphonophores, at least I don't, but they are fascinating with their federalist colonies of zooids. Bats are all amazing, but the task force seems to have done so much I feel the oomycetes and slime moulds need more love. Same thing with dinosaurs (I'm team Therizinosaurus though). But honestly, every species has that one moment in the research where you just go, wow, that's so interesting. For instance, I loved discovering that the picture-winged fly (Delphinia picta) has a mating dance that involves blowing bubbles. Now I keep expecting them to show me when they land on my arm, but no such luck yet.
3) Enwebb: I noticed that many of your recent edits utilize the script Rater, which aids in quickly reassessing the quality and importance of an article. Why is it important to update talk page assessments of articles? I also noticed that the quality rating you assign often aligns with ORES, a script that uses machine-learning to predict article quality. Coincidence?
Nessie: I initially started focusing on WikiProject talk page templates because they seem to be the key to data collecting and maintenance for articles, much more so than categories. This is where you note of an article needs an image, or audio, or a range map. It's how the cleanup listing bot sorts articles, and how Plantdrew does his automated taxobox usage stats. The latter inspired me to look for articles on organisms that are not assigned to any ToL WikiProjects which initially was in the thousands. I got it down to zero with just copypasta so you can imagine I was excited when I saw the rater tool. Back then I rated everything stub/low because it was faster: I couldn't check every article for the items on the B-class checklists. Plus each project has their own nuances to rating scales and I thought the editors in the individual projects would take it from there. I also thought all species were important, so how can I choose a favorite? Now it is much easier with the rater tool and the apparent consensus with Abductive's method of rating by the pageviews (0-9 views/day is low, 10-99 is med, 100-999 is high...). For the quality I generally go by the ORES rating, you caught me. It sometimes is thrown off by a long list of species or something, but it's generally good for stub to C: above that needs formal investigation and procedures I am still learning about. It seems that in the ToL projects we don't focus so much on getting articles to GA/FA so it's been harder to pick up. It was a little culture shock when I went on the Discord server and it seemed everyone was obsessed with getting articles up in quality. I think ToL is focusing on all the missing taxa and (re)organizing it all, which when you already have articles on every anime series or whatever you can focus on bulking the articles up more. In any event, on my growing to-do list is trying to get an article up to FA or GA and learn the process that way so I can better do the quality ratings and not just kick the can down the road.
4) Enwebb: What, if anything, can ToL and its subprojects do to better support collaboration and coordination among editors? How can we improve?
Nessie: I mentioned earlier that the projects are the main way maintenance is done. And it is good that we have a bunch of subprojects that let those tasks get broken up into manageable pieces. Frankly I'm amazed anything gets done with WikiProject Plants with how huge its scope is. Yet this not only parcels out the work but the discussion as well. A few editors like Peter coxhead and Plantdrew keep an eye on many of the subprojects and spread the word, but it's still easy for newer editors to get a little lost. There should be balance between the lumping and splitting. The newsletter helps by crossing over all the WikiProjects, and if the discord channel picked up that would help too. Possibly the big Enwiki talk page changes will help as well.
5) Enwebb: What would surprise the ToL community to learn about your life off-Wikipedia?
Nessie: I'm not sure anything would be surprising. I focus on nature offline too, foraging for mushrooms or wild plants and trying to avoid ticks and mosquitos. I have started going magnet fishing lately, more to help clean up the environment than in the hopes of finding anything valuable. But it would be fun to find a weapon and help solve a cold case or something.
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bannykus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greek (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
September 2019 Tree of Life Newsletter
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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 2019 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) 00:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Argentinosaurus 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) 05:40, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The article Argentinosaurus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Argentinosaurus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dunkleosteus77 -- Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Plants, fungi, and other organisms (510 designated out of projected 1,200)
Many articles have yet to be designated for Tree of Life taxonomic groups, with 1,942 outstanding articles to be added. Anyone can add vital articles to the list! Restructuring may be necessary, as the only viruses included as of yet are under the category "Health". The majority of vital articles needing improvement are level 5, but here are some outstanding articles from the other levels:
From October 2019 – December 2019, the top ten most popular bat articles fluctuated among 16 different articles, with the December viewership of those 10 articles at 209,280. For January 2020, three articles broke into the top-10 that were not among the 16 articles of the prior three months: Bat as food, Horseshoe bat, and Bat-borne virus. Viewership of the top-10 bat articles spiked nearly 300% to 617,067 in January.
While bats have been implicated as a possible natural reservoir of SARS-CoV-2, an intermediate host may be the bridge between bats and humans. Pangolins have been hypothesized as the intermediate host for the virus, causing a large spike in typical page views of 2-3k each day up to more than 60k in a day. Masked palm civets, the intermediate host of SARS, saw a modest yet noticeable spike in page views as well, from 100 to 300 views per day to as many as 5k views per day.
With an increase in viewers came an increase in editors. In an interview, longtime virus editor Awkwafaba identified the influx of editors as the biggest challenge in editing content related to the coronavirus. They noted that these newcomers include "novices who make honest mistakes and get tossed about a bit in the mad activity" as well as "experienced editors who know nothing about viruses and are good researchers, yet aren't familiar with the policies of WP:ToL or WP:Viruses." Disruption also increased, with extended confirmed protection (also known as the 30/500 rule, which prevents editors with fewer than 30 days tenure and 500 edits from making edits and is typically used on a very small subset of Wikipedia articles) temporarily applied to Coronavirus and still active on Template:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak data. New editors apparently seeking to correct misinformation continuously edited the article Bat as food to remove content related to China: Videos of Chinese people eating bat soup were misrepresented to be current or filmed in China, when at least one such video was several years old and filmed in Palau. However, reliable sources confirm that bats are eaten in China, especially Southern China, so these well-meaning edits were mostly removed.
Another level of complexity was added by the fluctuating terminology of the virus. Over a dozen moves and merges were requested within WikiProject Viruses. To give you an idea of the musical chairs happening with article titles, here are the move histories of two articles:
Awkwafaba noted that "the main authorities, WHO and ICTV, don't really have a process for speedily naming a virus or disease." Additionally, they have different criteria for naming. They said, "I remember in a move discussion from the article then called Wuhan coronavirus that a virus name cannot have a geographical location in it, but this is a WHO disease naming guideline, and not an ICTV virus naming rule. ICTV may have renamed Four Corners virus to Sin Nombre orthohantavirus but there are still plenty of official virus species names that don't abide by WHO guidelines."
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Congrats to your first FA, finally! We can be proud of it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Wow! Thanks so much for working on it with me and all the help you provided! I've learned a lot about the article writing and review process! And it's great to have a featured article for such an important sauropod as well! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Please describe how you went about creating WikiProject COVID-19. What made you think a project was needed?
I've been following the outbreak and editing related Wikipedia articles since January. I'm not particularly interested in infectious diseases or viruses, but I've been to China a few times and wanted to monitor the outbreak's impact on society as well as the government's response. For a while, I was casually tracking updates to the first couple pages about the outbreak. Then a pattern began to emerge as February saw the creation of separate articles about outbreaks in Iran, Italy, and South Korea. New Wikipedia articles continued being created in early March, and the outbreak was recognized as a pandemic by the World Health Organization on March 11. Knowing there would many more articles, lists, templates, illustrations, and other pages on Wikipedia, I created WikiProject COVID-19 on March 15. My goal was simply to create a temporary or permanent space for editors to collaborate, communicate, and focus specifically on content related to this ongoing pandemic. I'm a member of many WikiProjects and have created several before, but this one definitely felt more necessary and urgent. Most WikiProjects unite editors with similar interests, which is fine and serves a purpose, but I felt this project could have a much bigger real life impact. I don't think I was alone in my thinking; the project had 80 members by March 20 and 100 members by March 26.
Who or what was invaluable to getting off the ground?
If I'm being honest, getting this project off the ground required little work on my part. All I did was create the space and post invitations to existing talk pages related to the outbreak. Editors joined the project very quickly; 30 members joined on the same day I started the project, and there were more than 50 participants one day later. I've been a daily Wikipedia editor for more than 12 years, and I've never seen so much interest in a project or content added to Wikipedia about a specific topic in such a short period of time. WikiProject members worked expeditiously to build a framework and hang a barnstar, tagging related pages, assessing content, and starting talk page discussions about the project's goals and scope. I'm thankful to the many editors who pitched in to get the project established, and I look forward to seeing how editors collaborate in this space as we move forward.
What are the short-term goals of the project?
No specific goals have been posted to the project page yet, but I'd like to think members share a collective desire to ensure Wikipedia has accurate and reliable information about the disease and pandemic. Disinformation and misinformation seem rampant these days, so we're working to give readers around the globe access to accurate, objective, and possibly even life-saving information. Unlike some WikiProjects which may take a more historical approach to documenting certain topics, WikiProject COVID-19 members have the ability to mitigate the disease's spread in real time by arming communities with facts about outbreaks in their region as well as information about prevention, testing, vaccine research, societal impact, etc.
What are the long-term goals? English Wikipedia has many of 'lumpers' who think there are too many projects already. The project has also inspired the creation of two portals, which I imagine caused some raised eyebrows in this trend of portal deletionism. What will come of the WP after the current outbreak subsides?
After creating WikiProject COVID-19, a couple editors said I should have created a task force instead of a standalone WikiProject. I wasn't bothered. The number of 'thank you' notifications I received for creating the page vastly outweighed these critical comments. I knew the page I created was much needed, and I would be fine if editors decide to call the page by another name. I understand some editors think there are too many WikiProjects. No one's required to join WikiProject COVID-19, but the 100+ of us who have already joined invite you to help with our efforts, if you're interested. As for the project's future, I would be fine if editors decided to convert the WikiProject into a task force, or even put the project into retirement if the time comes. Given the level of interest and impact the pandemic has already had on a global scale, I have a feeling the WikiProject will be active for a long time.
Another criticism of the project is its narrow focus. It is focused on only one strain of virus, and the disease it causes. Even WikiProject AIDS is about two species of virus. Is the scope of the project too small? What would an expanded scope look like? Why would including another virus strain in the same species, Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus which causes SARS, not be wanted? or is it wanted?
Narrow focus? I disagree. The project may focus on a single virus and disease, but the pandemic has resulted in the creation of hundreds of Wikipedia articles documenting outbreaks in most countries and territories. There are pages covering the pandemic's impact on aviation, cinema, education, politics, religion, sports, and television, not to mention others related to the resulting economic turmoil. Additionally, there are hundreds of templates, charts, and other graphics. Who knows how many thousands of images and other media will be uploaded at Wikimedia Commons by the time this pandemic subsides? There's also COVID-19 WikiProject COVID-19 at Wikidata, and I wouldn't be surprised if similar spaces are created for other Wikimedia projects soon. Even if the focus is narrow, there's plenty of content for Wikimedians to improve and protect.
In your opinion, what should be the guidelines for creating a new project, as opposed to creating a task force or working under an existing WikiProject?
I don't feel strongly about new project creation guidelines, or the differences between WikiProjects and task forces. Project members should decide what structure works for them and call themselves whatever name they prefer. I understand project construction requires maintenance and can come at an administrative cost, but we should be careful about discouraging editors from proposing new projects.
Ideally, editors would only create a new WikiProject if at least a few others were committed to joining. I created WikiProject COVID-19 without conferring with others because I assumed the interest would be there. I encourage people to be bold and create project pages, but maybe ask a few other editors for feedback first. I'll let other editors worry about the guidelines.
What tools (templates, bots, etc.) are essential, or even just really helpful, for organizing and maintaining a successful project? What is something every WP should do, that maybe isn't doing now?
I don't have any sort of medical background, and I'm more interested in the pandemic's impact than details about the disease or virus. Most surprising to me has been the lack of preparedness for combating outbreaks by governments around the world, including here in the United States. I don't know how COVID-19's spread compares to other infectious diseases, but as I've watched the outbreak develop I've continually wondered why governments did not start preparing earlier. What was happening in China, Iran, Italy, and South Korea should have prompted action sooner.
What important things about 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic do you think folks should know and maybe have missed in the deluge of information coming at people?
1. Know the most common symptoms: cough, fever, and difficulty breathing.
2. Learn what behavioral adjustments you should make to protect yourself and reduce transmission, and remember to wash your hands.
3. Get your information from reputable sources. I'd like to think Wikipedia editors are pretty good at this last bit of advice.
Note A: Total is off by one; not worth looking for the error.
Note B Three food biographies moved [3] per discussion at WT:FAC
Note: The very odd dates used in earlier years result from pulling old data from the talk page at WP:FAS.
Good Article Category as of
Feb 23, 2008
Sep 16, 2008
Sep 16, 2010
Dec 1, 2011
Jan 1, 2015
Jan 1, 2020
Pct chg Feb 2008 to 2011
Pct chg Feb 2008 to 2020
Agriculture, food and drink
27
34
37
55
113
226
104%
737%
Art and architecture
134
188
321
450
683
1022
236%
663%
Engineering and technology
256
396
882
1198
1828
2407
368%
840%
Geography and places
191
248
424
523
716
1052
174%
451%
History
261
312
651
825
1219
1894
216%
626%
Language and literature
173
215
377
462
686
982
167%
468%
Mathematics
19
22
27
30
36
67
58%
253%
Media and drama
403
658
1352
1300
3070
3961
223%
883%
Music
357
527
997
1437
2532
3892
303%
990%
Natural sciences
544
686
1275
1717
2404
3426
216%
530%
Philosophy and religion
134
174
244
294
365
557
119%
316%
Social sciences and society
468
549
790
998
1430
1854
113%
296%
Sports and recreation
384
546
1074
1402
2350
3802
265%
890%
Video games
168
220
373
443
684
1349
164%
703%
Warfare
155
241
989
1654
2544
3996
967%
2478%
Total
3674
5016
9813
12788
20660
30487
248%
730%
Organisms*
119
130
402
528
685
1017
344%
755%
*subset of natural sciences
Unsurprisingly, the number of GAs has increased more rapidly than the number of FAs. Organisms, which is a subcategory of Natural sciences, has seen a GA growth of 755% since 2008, besting the Natural sciences overall growth of 530%. While Warfare had far and away the most significant growth of GAs, it's a clear outlier relative to other categories.
Do you have any personal projects or goals you're working towards on Wikipedia?
As I said I like organisation and systems. So I find efforts like the automated taxobox system and {{taxonbar}} appealing. I would like to see more reuse of the major phylogenetic trees on Wikipedia with more use of consensus trees on the higher taxa. Too often they get edited based on one recent report and/or without proper citation. Animals and bilateria are examples where this is a problem.
Towards this I have been working on a system of phylogeny templates that can be reused flexibly. The {{Clade transclude}} template allows selective transclusion, so the phylogenetic trees on one page can be reused with modifications, i.e. can be pruned and grafted, used with or without images, with or without collapsible elements, etc. I have an example for the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification (see {{Phylogeny/APG IV}}) and one for squamates that also includes collapsible elements (see {{Phylogeny/Squamata}}).
A second project is to have a modular reference system for taxonomic resources. I have made some progress along this lines with the {{BioRef}} template. This started off simply as a way of hardlinking to Catalog of Fishes pages and I’ve gradually expanded it to cover other groups (e..g. FishBase, AmphibiaWeb and Amphibian Species of the World, Reptile Database, the Mammalian Diversity Database). The modular nature is still rudimentary and needs a rewrite before it is ready for wider use.
What would surprise your fellow editors to learn about your life off-Wikipedia?
I don’t think there is anything particularly surprising or interesting about my life. I’ve had an academic career as a research scientist but I don't think anyone could guess the area from my Wikipedia edits. I prefer to work on areas where I am learning at the same time. This why I spend more time with neglected topics (e.g. mosses at the moment). I start reading and then find that I’m not getting the information I want.
Anything else you'd like us to know?
My interest in the classification of things goes beyond biology. I am fascinated by mediaeval attempts to classify knowledge, such as Bacon in his The Advancement of Learning and Diderot and d’Alembert in their Encyclopédie. They were trying to come up with a universal scheme of knowledge just as the printing press was allowing greater dissemination of knowledge.
With the internet we are seeing a new revolution in knowledge dissemination. Just look at how we could read research papers on the COVID virus within weeks of its discovery. With an open internet, everyone has access, not just those with the luxury of books at home or good libraries. Sites like the Biodiversity Heritage Library allow you to read old scientific works without having to visit dusty university library stack rooms, while the taxonomic and checklist databases provide instant information on millions of living species. In principle, the whole world can now find out about anything, even if Douglas Adams warned we might be disinclined to do so.
This is why I like Wikipedia, with all its warts, it’s a means of organising the knowledge on the internet. In just two decades it’s become a first stop for knowledge and hopefully a gateway to more specialised sources. Perhaps developing this latter aspect, beyond providing good sources for what we say, is the next challenge for Wikipedia.
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello. I've seen your comment on WikiProject Dinosaurs' image review page about Gregory S. Paul having a Saichania skeletal in the 2010 edition of his Field Guide to Dinosaurs but not in the 2016 edition. This leads me to believe you have copies of both editions. Now, I only have a copy of the 2016 edition, so can you tell me which taxa are illustrated in the 2010 edition but not the 2016 one? Also, if you could, can you send me the skeletals that are not in the 2016 edition? Thanks in advance. Atlantis536 (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Besides Saichania, the only other skeletals are those of Indosuchus and "Mamenchisaurus" sinocanadorum, both of which are highly problematic. The Indosuchus combines remains from several Indian abelisaurs of different size into a strange chimaera. I'm not fully sure about the accuracy of the Saichania, as I realize that it may be somewhat "tainted" by Tianzhenosaurus. I'm still waiting to see if the skeletal's deemed accurate on the DINOART page, so I think it's best to wait until people with more ankylosaur experience than me comment on it. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tatenectes 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 FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
June/July 2020 Tree of Life Newsletter
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The article Tatenectes you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Tatenectes 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 FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 23:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 2
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Umoonasaurus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Parietal.
Latest comment: 3 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion
Hi State Weasel,
Just a quick question. The article Ruyangosaurus claims that R. giganteous is 50+tonnes, yet, in your scaling, it has an unreasonably small body. Am I wrong to say Ruyangosauurus' body was larger?PNSMurthy (talk) 09:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
The scale in question is to the left. PNSMurthy (talk) 09:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I think that the torso is a composite, so its proportions aren't too certain, and to reliably know the torso's shape we'd need complete dorsal ribs, which I think we are lacking. I think that the torso of Ruyangosaurus could have been rather broad (although the dorsal vertebrae aren't very complete, and I don't know an awful lot about this taxon, unfortunately), though, so that might help it achieve greater masses. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Okay then. It is a very incomplete specimen...PNSMurthy (talk) 00:56, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
What do you use to make your comparison?PNSMurthy (talk) 09:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
As always, the reference(s) I based the silhouette and size on are listed in the file description. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 11:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Ah yes, randomdinos. I remember seeing that piece of his work. I meant; what application you use.PNSMurthy (talk) 23:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Ah yes, thanks.PNSMurthy (talk) 02:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Tell me, what is Ruyangosaurus' length? Isn't it around 35 metres? As far as I have seen, that is the size articles state. Your scaling of it seems to be quite short? Am I wrong?PNSMurthy (talk) 07:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
It's about 30 m (98 ft), matching Paul's estimate, which is also stated in the article. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
August 2020 Tree of Life Newsletter
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 30
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Peloneustes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leptacanthus.
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Congratulations, Slate Weasel! The article you nominated, Acamptonectes, 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, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 19
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Peloneustes, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages John Phillips and Green End.
Because you’re an English Wikipedia editor who works with media files, I’d like to invite you to join a research session to help us understand how the media editing process can be improved. If you (or any other media editors who see this!) are interested in participating in an anonymous interview—for which you will be compensated—please first fill out this short survey in which we ask you a few questions about working with media. At the end, we ask for an email address that we can use to contact you if you are selected for an interview. If selected, we will follow up with an email invitation to select a day/time to participate. As a thank you for your time and insights, we are able to offer interview participants a gift card in compensation for participation.
You can complete the survey on any internet-capable device, but in order to participate in the interview, you will need access to a computer and internet connection fast enough to support video calls.
This survey will be conducted via Google Forms, which may subject it to additional terms. For more information about privacy and data-handling, see the survey privacy statement. Of course, please feel free to remove this message.
Saichania size comparison
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Slate Weasel. I wanted to discuss your size comparison for Saichania: I think the smaller specimen (Institute of Geology, Mongolian Academy of Sciences 100/1305) in your picture is the same as the Mongolian Paleontological Center 100/1305 specimen? If so, you should know that it most likely represent Pinacosaurus (see Arbour V.M. & Currie P.J. (2013). "The taxonomic identity of a nearly complete ankylosaurid dinosaur skeleton from the Gobi Desert of Mongolia". Cretaceous Research '46: p. 24-30: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cretres.2013.08.008). (Conty~enwiki) 13:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC))
You definitely seem to be right about this, the reassignment has been accepted elsewhere (i.e. [4]). (Good thing I put Pinacosaurus in the Ankylosauria size comparison I recently uploaded instead of this!) Fortunately, Pinacosaurus and Saichania are pretty closely related, but I'm not sure if the juvenile skeleton's really the best basis for restoring the adult. I'll have to think a bit about what to do about this size comparison. Thanks for bringing this reassignment to my notice! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This is to let you know that the Argentinosaurus article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 13, 2021. 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/April 13, 2021, 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.
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The Reviewers Award
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 review you carried out on the FAC of Bajadasaurus. This work is very much appreciated. Hopefully the first of many. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Wow! Thanks! I really should try to do FAC reviewing more often, it's usually quite interesting. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
You seem to be good at it, so yes, you should. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Precious
Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
You are recipient no. 2575 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much! (I do feel obligated to note that Acamptonectes and Tatenectes aren't dinosaurs, though. Nonetheless, I still greatly appreciate this!) --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
If it's OK I'd like to use this section to thank you for all your size comparison charts. Very useful! Ericoides (talk) 07:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm glad you find them useful! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you and the team today for Acamptonectes, introduced: "This article is the first "official" WP:WikiProject Palaeontology collaboration, and the first FAC about an ichthyosaur, a group of prehistoric marine reptiles which were convergently similar to dolphins. Having been named relatively recently, not much has been published on it (not even a size estimate), so most info available about it is summarised here."! - Modest DYK contribution on the same page Protestant Church, Borgholzhausen, a place of memories - more on my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 11
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Peloneustes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tail fin.
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Congratulations, Slate Weasel! The article you nominated, Peloneustes, 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, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Fossil barnstar
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
The Fossilized Barnstar
I just noticed your first FAC solo nomination, Peloneustes, was promoted, congratulations, and I hope to see more from you at FAC! FunkMonk (talk) 00:46, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
On a related note, I kept confusing this with the simultaneous Mosasaurus FAC, because I peer reviewed both, and later GA reviewed Mosasaurus, but for some reaoson I thought I had also GA reviewed Peloneustes, which is why I didn't support it at FAC. But that's just another testament to the quality of the article, since you didn't even need my support for it to to fly (swim?) through! FunkMonk (talk) 00:54, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! I think that its quality is definitely at least somewhat related to all the reviews it went through. It is kind of funny that the two "major groups" of marine reptiles yet to receive FAs, pliosauroids and mosasaurids, both got their first FAC at around the same time. My next planned project is Liopleurodon, which is kind of like Peloneustes, except that it's basically slightly to much more complex in every possible way. Also, "for it to to fly (swim?) through!" - Well, plesiosaurs sort of did both :) --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Yep, their similarity definitely contributed to my confusion, and I'm annoyed I didn't get to give my formal support before it was promoted! But I hope I can give it to your next one, going to be tricky, but in some ways Liopleurodon is similar to Mosasaurus, with the confusing 19th century history, size issues, and many species, so you can probably use it as template. FunkMonk (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for September 18, 2021. 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/September 18, 2021. Congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 13:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 19
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Athabascasaurus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Enamel.
All the 2020 paper of Ophthalmosaurid new species supported the other paper of regarding Palvennia, Keilhauia and Janusaurus within Arthropterygius, and Cryopterygius synonymous. But conversely all the 2021 papers of new Ophthalmosaurid species classify the four taxa distinct, or most likely not belong to the genus, and also the 2019 paper of Arthropterygius thalassonotus. Huinculsaurus (talk) 11:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I do know about that paper (I even cited it in the merge proposal). The "expanded" Arthropterygius concept indeed seems to not have gained much traction, nor has the synonymy of Cryopterygius. While I don't think that support for their validity is unanimous, I definitely think that my proposed merger of Cryopterygius was premature and I no longer support it. It's retained as a valid genus in Cortés et al. (2021) (the description paper for Kyhytysuka, which does cite Zverkov & Efimov (2019), so the authors couldn't have not known about the proposed synonymy), and so far, besides Zverkov and Efimov's original study, I haven't seen anyone successfully reproduce their result of Cryopterygius nesting within Undorosaurus. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 14:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
WikiProject Tree of Life Newsletter – 018
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi! I have a kind of random question: How do you decide what color you make the taxa in your size charts? Do you have any particular methods, or is it just whatever you feel like? -SlvrHwk (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Generally there was no method unless one was specifically requested by reviewers; I generally just chose what "felt right" to me for a particular taxon. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 23:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Ok, makes sense. -SlvrHwk (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 7
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Liopleurodon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oxfordian.
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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) 01:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Bajadasaurus reconstruction
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi.Could you please add to your reconstruction of Bajadasaurus for the neural spines of the dermal sail? According to a recent study by Cedra and associates (2022) like Amargasaurus it could have just that. Aventadoros (talk) 07:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
I definitely could, though as this image also has potential to serve as "historical" reconstruction I'm first going to bring it up at WP:DINOART. Thanks for bringing this to my attention! --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 20:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments3 people in discussion
This is to let you know that the Peloneustes article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 18, 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/January 18, 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/January 2023.
Jimfbleak: Thank you very much! I've gone ahead and updated the article. I also made some modifications to the blurb, hopefully it's not too long and still readable (also, I realize these revisions were rather extensive, I hope I didn't overstep my authority). --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 19:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
I'll have a look tomorrow. The blurb length limit is 1025 characters including spaces, but it's your article, so you can amend as you see fit within that constraint. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 21:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Cool, good to know. I believe it's currently at 1007 characters, so I think that should be okay. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 21:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you today for the article "about perhaps the most completely known short-necked pliosaurid, a group of plesiosaurs, prehistoric marine reptiles with four flippers. This is also the first FAC for a Jurassic plesiosaur. Peloneustes has had quite a long history, and a great deal has been said about it in the literature, so I've done my best to cover all important aspects of its history, anatomy, and biology in the article. This is my first time at FAC on my own, though I have been a co-nominator for two other articles."! - Happy new year! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
WikiProject Tree of Life Newsletter Issue 21
Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 6 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Good morning or evening Slate Weasel. First, I would like to thank you already (even if I think I have already done so), for your reconstruction that you did for Eremiasaurus. Currently, I am working on a draft (which is being translated from a French version) on the imposing basal ichthyosaurCymbospondylus. As ichthyosaurs are your favorite area of Wikipedia (and on which you have also developed two articles on large ichthyosaurs from the Triassic), I said to myself that as I have access to all articles (if this is not the majority), we could expand the article so that it obtains FA status. I am very curious about your response, best regards, Amirani1746 (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Greetings! Unfortunately, I do not think I will have time to actively contribute to this project in the immediate future. However, I would be willing to do copyediting and/or possibly peer review if time permits, if either of those interest you. I know that Armin Reindl did much of the current expansion to bring the article out of stub-class and into its current state; pinging him to see if he might have any interest/input (I know that he's been working on quite a few other projects as of late though). Regardless, it looks like you're making good progress, and I look forward to seeing the project develop! --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 16:53, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know, always appreciate getting a heads up on this kind of thing. Though I have a few projects running at the moment (granted none I made any process on as of late) I am happy to contribute and collab to the best of my abilities. I should clarify that my initial work on the taxon was highly motivated by and actually in turn collaborated with a friend of mine who was himself working with Cymbospondylus and, through his work managed to get some feedback on my version of the article by Martin Sander. So with that in mind this could very well be an additional resource for the research process later down the line. In summary, tho my activity will vary I'll happily stay in touch and help out where needed on buffing the page up even further. Armin Reindl (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
WikiProject Tree of Life Newsletter Issue 24
Latest comment: 4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, unfortunately I am already working on updates to older size charts and am afraid that I will not have the time to make any of these, my apologies (I am also just not good at drawing mammals for some reason). We do have a few editors actively producing new size charts though, you could try to put in a request for these size charts at WP:PALEOART. Hope this helps. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 15:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
WikiProject Tree of Life Newsletter Issue 25
Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion