Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:20, 28 June 2013

Ordovican

Hi again! I just wanted to let you know that I've moved a little upwards on the List of Global Boundary Stratotype Sections and Points. I've created and looked over the first two Ordovician stages. I don't know if you still have time but the Tremadocian stage would need an article about the conodont Iapetognathus fluctivagus and the Floian stage an article about the graptolite Tetragraptus approximatus. Thank you again for pulling the weight on the Cambrian index fossils. --Tobias1984 (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Getting into the rather more obscure fossils by now so it's a bit harder finding the sources. No worries though, I'm still on them. BTW, should I prioritize those with definite GSSPs? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it is probably easier to find sources for index fossils with definite GSSPs. I guess it would be a good idea to prioritize them. In the case of Cambrian Stage 10 I think that Eoconodontus notchpeakensis will probably be adapted. All the sources that I could find were leaning towards it. --Tobias1984 (talk) 09:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Arctic fox (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Genetic

Sweet potato (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Quechua

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Index fossils

Thank you for adding the index fossil category to the Olenellus-lemma. Index fossils are characterised by a temporally strictly limited occurence and a wide spatial distribution (preferable global). Furthermore, the usefullness of fossils to define the age of strata improves with their abundance. This implies that not all fossils can be used as index fossils though. I fear an unmanageable surge of edits will occur adding this caterory to any fossil-lemma. In this light I would like to note that indeed some Olenellus species are useful as local index fossils. I also note that the page on Index fossils has a very limited list that only includes the species relevant for the US. What is your view on this issue.

Reading through the Index fossil lemma, I also conclude it is not consistent in its definition of this concept. Particularly the sentence "The best index fossils are not common, hard-to-identify at species level, and have a small distribution—otherwise the likelihood of finding and recognizing one in the two sediments is minor." is at best unclear, but I'm inclined to say it is incorrect. Kind regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 11:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dwergenpaartje. I'm basing the list of index fossils from the List of Global Boundary Stratotype Sections and Points that User:Tobias1984 is working on. So it's assuredly international, though a few of them are also used in local trilobite zones.

However, the inclusion of Olenellus in the category and the exact species that will be used for the Cambrian Stage 4 GSSP is still to be decided. They'll probably choose the species with the most cosmopolitan distribution for the GSSP, or they may not use Olenellus at all and instead go with a Redlichia species or Arthricocephalus chauveaui. If ever that happens, we either make an article on the actual species, or we remove them from the category.

If you also have the time, maybe you can help out Tobias1984 as well in creating articles for the trilobite species mentioned in the GSSP article, since trilobites are your expertise. Just pick a red link from there that interests you. I've been unexpectedly busy in real life and haven't been able to do any Misplaced Pages work in the last few days. And yes, the Index fossil and Trilobite zone articles need a lot of work.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Obsidian Soul, I've had a look at the List of Global Boundary Stratotype Sections and Points. I'll keep it under surveillance as I will try to work my way through the Agnostida, but there was no species there that I know has good sources available right now. The article did however made me think of a four page table in the Treatise, part O, revised, that correlates trilobite zones across paleocontinents. I could try to create an image that reflects the Treatise table's content, but since it is real big, I would need some guidance concerning its placement in an existing or new lemma, and concerning avoiding copyright infringement. Does User:Tobias1984 watch your TP? Regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 12:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dwergenpaartje! Indeed I'm watching this page. It would be tremendous of you to help with the Agnostida. ObsidianSoul and me already agreed, that we would deal with the index fossils of the formally defined GSSPs first. You can recognize them in the List of Global Boundary Stratotype Sections and Points by the little golden nail symbol. Usually these stages have better sources than the stages that still have candidate status. --Tobias1984 (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, and another thing, I had another look at the Index fossil article and concluded this sentence and a few others had been targeted by a new vandal. I reverted his changes and left a level 1 warning on User talk:Dragonofst. Never did this before, so I hope I did the right thing. Regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 12:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

All of the Ordovician stages are done now. I hope that all the information is up to date now. --Tobias1984 (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it is a great asset for an article to include illustrations of the fossil in question. I had a look which of the index fossils mentioned on the List of Global Boundary Stratotype Sections and Points would be available to buy and make photos of. I found a mere three: Ancyrodella rotundiloba, Leioceras opalinum and Spirograptus turriculatus (which I suspect is synonymous to Monograptus turricatus). The conondont of cause is so small, my camera could not make a useful picture, so I will try to find out if the University would be willing to help me out. For the agnostids, it seems that I will have to make linedrawings. My first priority would be to make a identification key, and the line drawings will come in handy there as well. I'll keep you posted on my progress, but all of this will be quite a job, probably taking several months, so please don't be hasty... Dwergenpaartje (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

That would be awesome if you can help with the conodonts and graptolites as well. And yes, I try to find pictures of them when possible. I've found a few from USGS papers (public domain) and very old papers, but the new ones (those described from 1927 onwards, especially those described very recently) are more difficult to find freely available pictures of.

Buying would be out of the question probably, as even if bought, the pictures retain copyright. I also have a tablet so I'll see if I can help with line drawings as well, they have relatively simple bodies so it shouldn't be that hard. That said, I'm still too busy in real life at the moment with the holidays and all, so my contributions will be patchy for the next few weeks. And yeah, it will take a while to fill them all in, so I'm not hurrying either. ;)

P.S. Good catch on the vandal on index fossil.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 06:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking of writing the Geologic Timescale Foundation. They might be interested in donating some pictures to Misplaced Pages. --Tobias1984 (talk) 09:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. I've had some luck asking for pictures directly from researchers before.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 10:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. There will be no copyright issue as I will not buy the pictures but the fossils themselves, and make my own pictures. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 12:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Tobias1984, in the table row on the Ediacaran it says: Isotopic: Beginning of a distinctive pattern of secular changes in carbon isotopes. I find that statement quite hard to understand. I'm not a native speaker, but many people reading the article won't be either. Looking around for a minute, I found the following statement: at the Ediacaran–Cambrian boundary the onset of a dramatic fall in Δ13C values (e.g., Amthor et al., 2003; Geology 31:431–434). Perhaps with this, you could clarify the text here.Dwergenpaartje (talk) 13:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Tsunyidiscidae

Dear Obsidian Soul, I would appreciate to hear your opinion on the following two issues.

• I recently created a page on Eodiscina. The Eodiscina have but one superfamily (the Eodiscioidea). Except for pre-existing species-level articles, that I sometimes convert to/combine with genus-level articles, I have never redirected pages to higher taxonomic levels. Probably I should rather have made a page on Eodiscioidea and redirect the Eodiscina page to it, but I did not, so here we are. Perhaps there is some existing practice on such issues? How should I deal with this?
• I recently created a page on Tsunyidiscus. Tsunyidiscus is the only genus in the Tsunyidiscidae. The authority for this family is different from that of the genus, but it is the only additional information for such a page. Should a redirect-page be created, and if so, how do we convey the authority of the family? If not, what should I do? Dwergenpaartje (talk) 13:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I made some changes to the articles. Yes, monotypic taxa should always be redirected to the article where they are included. Their ranks should also be bolded in both the taxobox and the lead, and the taxobox should also contain the authorities for both of them (even if they are the same). Just do the same practices as with monotypic genera really. I have done these for both articles.

As for Eodiscina, I think Eodiscina is a more familiar name than Eodiscoidea, so I think it's better, IMO. And yes, there are apparently no conventions for higher monotypic taxa, so I tend to just rely on common sense with them. The only guideline I know of is the one that says monotypic genera should be written at the genus name (or common name, if available) rather than the species name.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tetragraptus approximatus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Taimyr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back

I'm very sorry about the destruction in your homeland. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean the typhoon? Honestly it was just a few days of heavy rains, no internet/TV/cellphone signals, and intermittent blackouts. Most casualties of typhoons like Bopha are the result of fallen trees, flash floods, or mudslides, and I'm thankfully nowhere near any of that. So no worries.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 21:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh good. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 02:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

talkback

First Gibraltar Challenge GLAM Barnstar

		The GLAM Logo Barnstar
		The Gibraltar Challenge created over 600 new articles in more than three dozen languages in about four months. Scores of people helped on-line and in en:Gibraltar. You can find who else helped and find out more by clicking here, you helped with this. Thank you. Mrjohncummings (talk) 19:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Table of differences between Musa acuminata and M. balbisiana

I've posted here rather than at Talk:Banana, because it concerns only your edits. Actually, I tend think that you were right in the first place to put the table of differences in the two species articles, and that when you removed it (e.g. here) it was perhaps not the right thing to do. Differentiating between the species rather than the cultivars surely belongs at the species articles? I do understand though that this is a very difficult set of articles to manage. The totality of information available is very impressive. I'm sure that most of the banana-related articles can be got to GA status. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hm. The reason I removed it is because the table is not really for diagnoses of the species, it is actually a scoring system. Bananas get a number of points according to which characteristic they display most prominently (a scale of 1 to 5 for each characteristic), whether they will be identified as mostly M. acuminata or M. balbisiana-derived will depend the total; such that AAA and AA cultivars (i.e. purely or mostly polyploids of M. acuminata) will get a score of about 15 and BBB or BB cultivars (i.e. purely or mostly polyploids of M. balbisiana) will get a score of 75. Needless to say, this is only useful for the cultivars, not the species. This page in the Promusa site might explain it better. At most, the table just needs a better accompanying caption perhaps. It might be too detailed yeah, but it's certainly relevant more to the cultivars.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 04:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

In that case I wonder if the table is actually better at List of banana cultivars? The explanation you have above (which I think should be in Misplaced Pages) naturally belongs there, where the groups are defined and listed. There is actually a more general issue here. There are quite a few cases where there is a combination of a plant "main" article and a "list of" article. Often the taxonomy/rationale for the arrangement of the entities (species, cultivars) in the "list of" article is only explained in detail in the "main" article. This used to be the case in the Cactus and Classification of the Cactaceae pair. I decided it was better to have an overview of the classification at Cactus and more detail at Classification of the Cactaceae, which can then be given as the "main article" at the top of the section in Cactus. In the same way there could be the current introduction to the naming of the cultivar groups at Banana and more detail, including the table, in an introductory section at List of banana cultivars. What do you think about this arrangement? Peter coxhead (talk) 10:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like the best way, I guess. If I wasn't clear before, I have no objections to it being removed or placed elsewhere whatsoever. :P Let me know if I can help with anything in taking it to GA. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll move it. As for the GA process, I thought I was encouraging you to proceed with that! :-) I'm happy to help if I can, though topic is far from any of my areas of expertise. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Augh, naw! LOL. Banana is a massive, massive topic and I'm way too busy these days with some non-Misplaced Pages stuff. :P -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, first I'd like to express my appreciation of the work you've done in this area so far. I only got involved because of your post re "Banana edit war" at WT:PLANTS, and then found the subject quite interesting. However, I can see that it's a nightmare! The sources are confused and contradict one another: even the main cultivar groups aren't always clear (e.g. some sources equate the Cavendish Group to the AAA Group, others make it a subgroup of the AAA Group); it's not clear what are cultivars and what are a set of related cultivars (e.g. Constantine writes " 'Dwarf Cavendish' cultivars 'Basrai' and 'Srimanti' " but this doesn't make sense – cultivars can't be part of other cultivars); the names don't follow the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants, partly I guess because the genome group system was invented before the ICNCP came into force; the names of cultivars vary from source to source and there are obviously a huge number of synonyms. Still, I've got into it now and I'll do a bit more tidying. If you do have any time, I would welcome any comments you may have, as you've obviously worked on this topic for a long time, but I'll understand if you don't. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I think with the modern classification the Cavendish Group is properly an AAA subgroup. 'Basrai' and 'Srimanti' seem to be either actual laboratory-derived cultivars from 'Dwarf Cavendish' or synonyms adopted purely for legal or commercial reasons. They're all clones of clones, if you ask me, :P but treating them as proper cultivars would be what I'd do, I guess.

And yes, a lot of the naming follows outdated conventions, some dating back to Linnaean taxonomy which is why I stressed that Musa sapientum and M. paradisiaca, both of which are still widely used especially in the more isolated third-world scientific literature, are no longer correct.

I'm not sure on how widely the name Musa ×paradisiaca is used. I suspect it dates back to when Cheesman, Simmonds, et al. started discovering that the banana "species" were actually hybrids and is now incorrect. The Promusa article (under section "Previous nomenclature system") I gave earlier mentions this. Almost all literature I found using it use it to describe "French plantains" exclusively (whatever that cultivar actually is), and it seems to be rarely used in actual banana-specialized literature. IMO, it's best to stick to actually describing the hybrid parentage as most sources do. Also, Is the requirement for congeneric hybrid names to have a genus on the second parent a new ICN rule or something, or was I just daft? Haha. I've encountered three most common ways to write it: Musa acuminata × Musa balbisiana, and Musa acuminata × M. balbisiana, and Musa acuminata × balbisiana, so no problems on that I guess.

Anyway I'll try. I'm obviously not exactly an expert as well, so take my opinions with a grain of salt, heh. I think my involvement in the topic started out because I wanted to make articles on some cultivars uncommon in other countries but economically and culturally important here.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

What the ICN says and what botanists do is rarely the same! AFAIK, the ICN has consistently frowned on formats like M. acuminata × balbisiana, because the × here should connect two species names, and by itself balbisiana isn't a name. But lots of sources do use this format. As for M. × paradisiaca as a name for M. acuminata × M. balbisiana, I agree it's confusing, because the consequence is that M. × paradisiaca L. does not refer to the same set of plants as M. paradisiaca L. However, this is a general problem; the ICN regulates names not circumscriptions. However, it seems that the most reliable sources now accept that the correct name for the set of plants represented by the formula M. acuminata × M. balbisiana is M. × paradisiaca. But I would only use it where it's already been explained clearly what it now means.

Thinking about the article List of banana cultivars, which I've been expanding a bit, I wonder if this is the right name. The reality is that we are never going to have anything like a complete list, given that sources estimate that there are might be as many as 1,000 cultivars (and there are certainly 1,000 names!!). Maybe it would be better as just "Banana cultivars", with more description of the groups and subgroups, accepting that only a sample of cultivars can ever be listed? I'm not sure about this. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. M. × paradisiaca would also apply to what was Musa sapientum, instead of simply plantains as Linnaeus originally used it for. I see you pointed it out in the discussion in the Banana talk page. Anyway, I like what you've done with the taxonomy section so far. Definitely much more succinct.

As for the List of banana cultivars article, sure, Banana cultivars definitely sounds better. And perhaps the accompanying list itself should also be headed with a standard disclaimer on only including notable cultivars, etc.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Cephalopyge

Dear Obsidian Soul, When preparing to make an article on Cephalopyge, I more frequently ended up with a nudibranche than a trilobite. Therefore I created a page Cephalopyge (trilobite). I have send an email to the author of the trilobite genus. This is his answer:

"Dear colleague,

You are absolutely correct in your assumption that Cephalopyge Geyer, 1988 is a junior synonym of Cephalopyge Hanel. I discovered this in 1999 and wanted to do a small paper on additional material and with suggesting a new name. For different reasons, this article has been delayed. Unfortunately, a colleague dashed into the situation and, if I may say this, in a sort of nomenclatural piracy suggested the new name Marocconus to replaces the Cephalopyge as a name for the trilobite genus. In case you are interested, I am attaching a PDF of the relevant article."

However, it is as if the name Marocconus is boycotted, I cannot find it anywhere else than in the PDF I received. Could you please advise me? Thanks again, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm... don't really know honestly. Personally, I'd continue using the Cephalopyge name given that Marocconus doesn't seem to have gained consensus. However, I'd mention that one author suggested it be renamed Marocconus in the taxonomy section.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 00:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

On second thought, I found this 2011 paper of his which uses Marocconus, (p.483) albeit with a note detailing his misgivings on the new name:

• Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.3140/bull.geosci.1252, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.3140/bull.geosci.1252 instead.

So it might be alright to place the article at Marocconus instead, with a short description of the name change, a redirect from Cephalopyge (trilobite), and a disambiguation hatnote on the nudibranch genus page.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Help?

Given I constantly checked the page you wrote for Trogloraptor (great job, BTW) while writing Predatoroonops, can you take a look at it and check the prose? Thanks. igordebraga ≠ 16:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and interesting article. :) Ok, I tried rewording it a bit along with a few minor fixes. Revert it if I made it worse, heh, as I'm not a native English speaker, I do not have access to the original paper, and it's 3 AM. :P I'm puzzled on why you originally put six scientists, though. There seems to be only five authors involved all in all. I also think the phrase "first fully revised endemic Brazilian genus of spiders" needs clarification as I'm not even exactly sure what it really means. :/ -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 19:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Is image really 'Karat' banana?

Hi, the image you uploaded to Commons, File:Karat bananas.jpg, appears in several places on the web as being of a cultivar of the Fe'i group, including here. However, I've been reading up about Fe'i bananas (see the article I've started at Fe'i banana) and I'm now wondering if this is correct. Fe'i bananas are said in several sources to have deep ridges on their skins, making them squarish in cross-section. You can see that shape if you look closely at File:Hillsman_carrying_feis_to_Papeete,_by_Coulon.jpg – almost like a star fruit in cross section. But the image of the "Karat banana" is quite different: it's smooth-skinned and rounded. Ploetz et al. (here, p. 14) say "In Pohnpei (FSM) bananas .. exist also such as 'Peleu' and 'Karat en Iap' (unrelated to the more common 'Karat' bananas, which are Fe'i)". They are AAA group, Maoli-Pōpō'ulu subgroup, and should be "sausage-shaped fruit with blunt ends". So the shape in the image, given the location in Pohnpei, suggests to me that 'Karat en Iap' has been mistaken for 'Karat', or else 'Karat' is the local name, given that it just means "carrot". So this is not an image of a Fe'i banana but an AAA banana. Furthermore, the infant in the picture here appears to be eating the banana raw, which is fine for an AAA cultivar, but Fe'i types are supposed to be plantain-like and need cooking.

However, I don't know how this can be sorted out one way or the other. Any thoughts? Peter coxhead (talk) 10:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope. It definitely is fe'i 'Karat'. See "Pohnpei Bananas: A Photo Collection: Carotenoid-rich varieties" (Englberger & Lorens, 2004). Note that it's the source referenced by Ploetz et al. in their paper. There's a picture of both bananas in that pdf, and they do look quite different, with 'Karat en Iap' and 'Peleu' both elongated and blunt-ended ("sausage-shaped"). The pictures of 'Karat' there also show that it's quite distinctively ridged, the apparent absence of it in the picture I uploaded is likely just the result of the angle of the shot.

I also found this article in the Infomusa journal by the same author: "Carotenoid-rich bananas in Micronesia" (Englberger, 2003). She mentions that both 'Karat' and 'Uht en yap' (='Utin Iap', another "true" fe'i banana different from the yellow-fleshed 'Karat en Iap') can both be eaten raw if allowed to ripen. Both might help in the Fe'i article.

It introduces another problem though. The bananas in the picture of the hillsman look more like 'Dukuru', 'Ipali', or 'Inahsio'; which Englberger identifies as ABB Ney Mannan, AAB, and ABB Bluggoe respectively.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hm, further reading all seem to say that fruit sizes and shapes do tend to differ. So that picture of bananas from Tahiti probably is fe'i. I also found what seems to be Englberger's last paper (she died in 2011), also of fe'i bananas but this time from Makira of the Solomon Islands.

Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1016/j.jfca.2010.03.002, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1016/j.jfca.2010.03.002 instead.

Can't access the text but it has pictures, and you can see the range in size and shape, from ones which resemble the Micronesian 'Karat' to ones which resemble the bananas the Tahitian hillsman is carrying. I also found this INIBAP article from 2000 of fe'i bananas in Tahiti. It mentions that fe'i bananas can be distinguished from other bananas by "erect bunches, bright orange colour of the mature fruit and the color of the sap, which ranges from dark violet to pink" as well as the bright shiny green bracts of the inflorescence and a 2n of 20. Promusa says the same thing, with the addition of frilly petiole bases and the cross-corrugations in the leaf venation as distinguishing characteristics. None seem to mention fruit shape.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 14:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, excellent research! You seem to have "sorted this out". It's a pity that we can't use any of these photos, as far as I can tell, because they don't have the right copyright. The one you uploaded seems to be the only permissible one showing Fe'i group bananas. It may be that the angles don't show on it because the resolution is so low. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Invisible figure caption

Dear Obsidian Soul, I'm trying to work my way across the Agnostida. In several Peronopsid articles, I added a graph depicting relationships, such as in Peronopsidae. I did not use "thumb", because the information would be unreadable. However, the explanation of what is in the graph does not show itself somehow. Could you please have a look and advise me in this? Thank you in advance, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 12:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) - You need to use 'thumb' to get the caption to appear. Because you have specified the width of the diagram, the thumbnail is that size, rather than the standard (~200px). I've added it and it still looks ok to me. Can I suggest that you make diagrams like this in inkscape in the future? Then you can save them as svg files which scale better. Failing that, save them as png rather than jpg as jpg should only really be used for photographs. SmartSE (talk) 13:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Don't have inkshape (I use GIMP), but I will reload my graphs as png, now that I know it is better. Cheers, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Waptia

Waptia needs to go to the Gallery. I want you to create a more Burgess Shale book fossils of the Burgess Shale art. User:98.177.220.111 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.220.111 (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Please look at my Wiki Commons talkpage and/or that of Wiki Commons Category:Trilobita

Hi Obsidian Soul, I tried to clean up the taxonomy on top of the Wiki Commons Category:Trilobita. Liné1 however, prefers to stick to the taxonomy as provided by PBDB, and to add my correction as an alternative. I note the PBDB taxonomy is inconsistent with that of the trilobite template used in the english Misplaced Pages. I find having both taxonomies actually quite messy. I do not want to make a fuss if other users think it is fine like it is right now. Could you please have a look? Thanks in advance -- Dwergenpaartje (talk) 12:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sa Aking Mga Kabata, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Freiheit (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 19:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Textbooks & education in the Philippines

You mentioned this in the "Malay or Austronesians?" discussion. I nearly followed that up there, but decided to let it go by this time without largely uninformed criticism of the RP DOE from me. However, less publicly here, I'll mention this edit to another article and the textbook cited there. I did look at what the online previewable copy of that textbook has to say about models of migration to the Philippines, and I couldn't figure out what it was trying to say. Cheers, Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Well most criticism would be justified anyway. It's corrupt like most everything else here. DOE is notorious for republishing textbooks with only very minor changes to the content. Forcing parents to buy expensive "new" editions every time for their children. So for all we know, most of what is written in current school textbooks might still be the original American Commonwealth-era content, albeit slightly reworded. The period of intense ultra-nationalism during the "Bagong Lipunan" era of Marcos also didn't help. It introduced a lot of "facts" into textbooks that were really anti-colonial propaganda. And I don't think there ever was any effort done on rooting them out.

To its credit, the book does mention that the Code of Kalantiaw has been debunked as a hoax and that Beyer's theories have largely been abandoneded by modern historians and anthropologists. It mentions the anthropologist F. Landa Jocano who believes in a version of the "Out of Sundaland" model of migration, but it doesn't mention anything about Bellwood's "Out of Taiwan" hypothesis, which is currently the most widely accepted theory. And it still has errors like repeating the Marcos-era propaganda that the Maharlika were the nobility class among Prehispanic Filipinos.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 01:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Fern questions and photo

Hi, can you check on this ref-desk question ? I have tried to answer, and in the process, found that a photo that appears to be yours is also used in a review article by Weber & Keeler. They do give an attribution, but I'm not sure if one or both attributions might be in error. I also thought you might know something about extrafloral nectaries in ferns, and so might be able to help with the question. Thanks for any input, and hope to see you around the ref desk more often! SemanticMantis (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Your trilobite template is really effin cool! Abyssal (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)