This is an archive of past discussions about User:FunkMonk. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Ok, so we need a hook... How about: "This article is about a genus of dome-headed dinosaur (the pachycephalosaurs), and the only member of this group to ever be nominated for FAC. Since it is one of the most completely (and first) known of these dinosaurs, it has been the subject of many studies, which we have attempted to summarise here, including various theories about what the dome was used for. It is a GA, has been copyedited, and the bulk of the images are from the CC-licensed journal Plos One." FunkMonk (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
This image was presumably taken in 1877 and would be useful for an article I am working on. Can I upload it to Commons as being in the public domain after expiry of its copyright? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be an artist credited, but see the PDF here[1], where the image is taken from, might have some extra info, and that old magazine should be listed as the source... May count as an anonymous work, which seems to have its own rules. FunkMonk (talk) 09:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't know how to thank you for all your hard work in shoving Bluebuck toward success in FAC, though it was supposed to be a collaboration between us I'm sorry I've not been able to help out really at the FAC. But you've handled all those comments so efficiently that my absence couldn't even be felt! Maybe I can thank you with a surprise which you'll soon be getting.. wait a week and you'll know :) Sainsf(talk·contribs)05:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Exciting! And well, you did most of the work on the actual article, so it's just fair that I do a bit more at the FAC.... FunkMonk (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Giganotosaurus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Geographic. 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.
During a recent lengthy discussion on the WP:FAC talkpage, several ideas were put forward as to how this procedure could be improved, particularly in making it more user-friendly towards first-time nominees. The promotion rate for first-timers at FAC is depressingly low – around 16 percent – which is a cause for concern. To help remedy this, Mike Christie and I, with the co-operation of the FAC coordinators, have devised a voluntary mentoring scheme, in which newcomers will guided by more experienced editors through the stages of preparation and submission of their articles. The general format of the scheme is explained in more detail on Wikipedia: Mentoring for FAC, which also includes a list of editors who have indicated that they are prepared to act as mentors.
Would you be prepared to take on this role occasionally? If so, please add your name to the list. By doing so you incur no obligation; it will be entirely for you to decide how often and on which articles you want to act in this capacity. We anticipate that the scheme will have a trial run for a few months before we appraise its effectiveness. Your participation will be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks for signing up. The response from would-be mentors has been most encouraging. Schemes like this are often slow to take off, and it may be a while before we know if it's working. But with this level of support, including that of many of our most experienced FA editors, I think it has every chance. Brianboulton (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Giganotosaurus 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) 20:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
TFA the right day
Precious again, your Passenger pigeon, "one of the most famous bird species to have been exterminated by humans"!
Yep. Might be tricky, because the original is CC licensed. But I'll try... At least the author info etc would have to be changed in the derivative. FunkMonk (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm retired now, but before this, I wrote under a lot of Nobu's drawings "artist's view by Nobu Tamura". My derivative works ARE NOT ART. But only some palaeontological restorations, and my restaurations are not creative works, but must thereby being in order to stay within the limits of what is allowed by researchers at the time it is made, and must necessarily be inspired by other pictures already scientifically proved. If one confused the artistic creative process with the derivative scientific process of « conjecturally reconstituted being » (whose most impressive examples are the « real size Dinosaurs » sitting proeminently in the gardens or in the front square of various Museums, or else prehistorical Hominidae presented in dioramas by many Museums), this one will consider as « inaccurate » and/or as a « copyviol », the whole of the artist's views, of the computer-generated images, of the volumic reconstitutions, and Paleontology, Archaeology or Naval history will be deprived of all its iconography intended for general public, apart from the scientific pictures in specialized magazines, that will evade this iconographical « cleaning », possibly concerning even some proeminent illustrators as Mauricio Antón, Nobu Tamura, Dimitri Bogdanov, Zdeněk Burian, Heinrich Harder or Charles R. Knight, says une of my collegues. Now, you can delete Aegirocassis if Nobu wants it, but not my Compsognathus in the Natural Historu Museum of Toulon where I'm working as a illustrative provider !! Be rational and do not get upset plase, --Spiridon Ion Cepleanu (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi FunkMonk, I saw your name on the list of FA mentors. I am keen to bring Balfour Declaration to FA status ahead of the 100th anniversary next year (which will attract a lot of media interest). But I have never taken an article to FA before. Would you be willing to mentor me on this?
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week for work relating to extinct animals. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)
I nominate FunkMonk(talk·contribs·count·logs) to be Editor of the Week for his thankless contributions to Wikipedia's coverage on extinct animals, most notably Dodo. He is a most amiable, polite and helpful editor, a good colleague of mine here, and has quite a lot of GAs and FAs to his name. Moreover, he is a prominent uploader of a variety of images. I feel he deserves greater recognition for his efforts. Thanks.
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}
On behalf of all the GA Cup judges, we would like to congratulate you on making it past Round 1 and into Round 2 of the 2016 GA Cup! Although you didn't make the top 8 for Round 3, you reviewed articles which further contributes to the GA process and we thank you for that. We hope to see you at the next competition! MrWooHoo (T • C) 20:51, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping- no promises I'm afraid. I've a lot on and I'm not really a dino-enthusiast (my fianceé's super keen; shame I'm yet to convince her to sign up). If you're still struggling for lack of reviews by Friday, let me know and I'll try to fit in a review over the weekend. Best of luck with it either way! Josh Milburn (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Sure, let's tag-team this one. I've done the first pass; that's about the right length. I've done some rewording; that's not a criticism of your language at all, which is great for an article where someone is looking for detailed information, but perhaps is not ideal as a column that someone glances at when they're clicking on the Main Page (and there are 10M of those people per day ... many are casual readers, probably). If you object to identifying specimen, we could perhaps say just "specimen" (unlinked). - Dank (push to talk) 15:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I think you can do whatever you want when it comes to simplifying, my only objection is to if meaning is changed (which would probably be accidental anyway). FunkMonk (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Precious again, your Baryonyx, one of the best preserved animals of its kind from the UK!
We would like to announce the start of the 4th GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been three GA Cups, which were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 400 nominations listed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time.
The 4th GA Cup will begin on November 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on February 28, 2017), but this may change based on participant numbers. We may take a break in December for the holidays, depending on the results of a poll of our participants taken shortly after the competition begins. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same, as will the scoring.
Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on October 31, 2016. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now!
If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges.
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
Congratulations for your diligence as the FAC nominee for Stegoceras, and for the tireless work you did getting it promoted to WP:FA. As always, it was a pleasure for me to work with you, and to participate as one of the reviewers! Atsme📞📧23:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I have zero experience with source reviews, though, they're quite complicated to do... I can do the image review if you want? FunkMonk (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
No problem though it's not that complicated. All you have to do is check sources if they are reliable and properly formatted (except if it's for first-time nominees where you also need to spot-check). Have a good day! - Liebe99 (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Hey. I don't quite know how or where I'm supposed to reply to your edits, so I'll just put them here for now until I find out.
Regarding my Chilantaisaurus, I admit, I should have specified, I took a few liberties with the lacrimal horns regarding size, and I added a speculative membrane connecting the horns to the 'brow', which made them seem bigger than they really are. Nothing too outlandish IMO, but I should have specified. As for muscle definition, I figured that there were too many reconstructions out there depicting dinosaurs like bodybuilders, looking like their skin is struggling to contain their bulging muscles. I made Chilantai a little more 'fatty', thus obscuring a lot of underlying muscle.
Moving on to Teratophoneus, that problem also came in a lack of specification on my part. I deemed it more accurate because I obscured the sunken fenestrae of the old (new?) image with skin and fat and such. I also added more feathers, and, given that IIRC Terato was smaller than Yutyrannus, I don't think that a feathered Teratophoneus is at all out of the realms of plausibility.
I think the "anti-shrink-wrapping" arguments are being taken to the extremes in some cases, no animals are completely smoothed out like that. Look at de-feathered birds, there are clear muscle and sinew definition and plenty of details:[11][12] Same with lizards, there is clear muscle definition:[13] Of course, we shouldn't show sunken fenestrae and skeletal animals, but there is nothing wrong with defining muscles. In fact, it is more natural than overly smooth surfaces of skin. In any case, we have the dinosaur image review page[14], where new images should preferrably be posted for review before being inserted into articles. FunkMonk (talk) 09:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
We would like to announce the start of the 4th GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been three GA Cups, which were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 400 nominations listed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time.
The 4th GA Cup will begin on November 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on February 28, 2017), but this may change based on participant numbers. We may take a break in December for the holidays, depending on the results of a poll of our participants taken shortly after the competition begins. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same, as will the scoring.
Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on November 14, 2016. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now!
If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges.
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tahiti rail 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 J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Hezbollah Flag.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Hezbollah Flag.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
But the image is anatomicaly incorrect, bipedal ornithischians could not pronate their hands. We don't use incorrect images here, unless they are of historical significance. You should post such restorations at the dinosaur image review in the future:[15]FunkMonk (talk) 09:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
No time to edit it. If you want/are interested, i can give you the original tho make you the changes you want to see. The article needs an image, if for an study. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yewtharaptor (talk • contribs) 15:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
The problem is here, there are a few Heterodontosaurid? fossils found on 2011(A complete thooth, a fragment thooth and two vertebrae), assigned to the genus...and the genus yes, is a footprint genus...here the problem. It is like the case of Koreanosaurus Theropod and Koreanosaurus ornistichian...
I remember that a few weeks ago the creator of the article still with the false information of the synonym with Grallator... Yewtharaptor (talk • contribs) 17:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, there are still the following problems with using the image: 1 - it has anatomical inaccuracies, 2 - it has not been reviewed, 3 - if all we know is that the trackmaker may have been a heterodontosaur, we shouldn't make up some fantasy creature to illustrate it, but show an already known heterodontosaur as example. FunkMonk (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Im going to see the changes that needs the article, making contacts tho look for something about the fossils, and other mistakes to do the necesary changes ... Yewtharaptor (talk • contribs) 17:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
TFA
Precious again, your Bluebuck, "the first large African mammal to be exterminated by humans in historical times"!
Hello, FunkMonk. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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.
I have done a bit of editing on it, but I'm very unfamiliar with the relevant literature (and insect literature in general). Do you know any good sources?FunkMonk (talk) 09:36, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, FunkMonk -- I have just completed the copy-edit for Tahiti rail. The article was quite well written. I wanted to mention a few things:
1) In the section Tahiti rail#Description you have a two-paragraph block quote (formatted with the "quote" template). After I saved my edits and looked again at the article, I saw that the two paragraphs of the quote are quite far from the left margin. I guess they are being pushed over to the right by the image of the bird that is located to the left, right under the heading "Description". Thus, there is quite a bit of white space under the image and to the left of the two paragraphs. I wonder if you could figure out a way to place or size the image so that the paragraphs are closer to the left margin.
2) I just wanted you to know that I removed commas after initial phrases such as "In 1973". I don't think they are necessary because few native speakers pause there when they speak (unless the phrase is followed by a parenthetical phrase enclosed between two commas). I have checked on this with the lead coordinator of the GOCE and have been advised that either style (i.e., with or without the comma) is fine, but it should be consistent within the article. If you feel strongly that a comma should follow "In + year", I'd be glad to put the commas back in. I just prefer no comma.
Flightlessness can be advantageous because it conserves energy by decreasing the mass of flight muscles; the absence of especially mammalian predators and a reduced need for dispersal are factors that allow this feature to develop in island birds.
I'm not sure I like the phrase "especially mammalian predators". The adverb "especially" could be read as intensifying the adjective (mammalian) (i.e., really, really mammalian) rather than distinguishing mammalian from other types of predators. Perhaps you would consider one of these:
the absence of predators, particularly mammalian predators, and a reduced need for dispersal...
the absence of predators, especially mammalian predators, and a reduced need for dispersal...
the absence especially of mammalian predators, and a reduced need for dispersal...
Thanks for the CE! I think "particularly mammalian" would look well. As for the space between the quote and the image, I think it is because quotes are always indented more than the article text, so the two are not confused. So in this case, I think it serves to make it clear that this part of the text is distinct from the rest? FunkMonk (talk) 09:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
November 28, 2016 was supposed to mark the end of the first round. However, we needed 16 competitors to move on, and currently only 10 have completed articles.
Thus, the judges have come together to let the participants decide what we shall do. Please complete this quick survey to let us know whether you would like a holiday break.
There will be two options for what we will do next in terms of Round 2 depending on the results of this poll.
If the survey indicates that the competitors want a break, we will have a 2nd round after the break ends with just the 10 competitors who have reviewed articles, starting in January (with a specific date TBA).
If the survey does not indicate that participants want a break, we will extend Round 1 until the end of December.
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
You are right - was a stupid idea to put it in there. Just felt the need to find something that relates to the anatomy section, could not find anything better. ATBWikirictor (talk) 14:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Hehe, I'd say anything is better than that image! We have a fairly good understanding of how Neanderthals looked like today, and that image makes even 19th century depictions look accurate... FunkMonk (talk) 14:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Funkmonk: In 2014, you added this information to the Huia article, and (probably unwittingly) added a disambiguation to it. And unfortunately, I can't find any existing "ino" article that seems to match your intent. Is "ino" something widely known (or easily explained)? Or should I just remove that part of the sentence? MeegsC (talk) 13:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
The subject is dealt with in the article Ino budgerigar mutation, it is just too specific to link to. So either we need a new article on the subject, or it could be dealt with in another, broader article about pigmentation deficiencies. Just removing it would be a cop-out, I think... FunkMonk (talk) 13:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, and to be honest, much of that budgerigar article is about the mutation in general, not about the bird specifically, so I think much of that text (entire genetics section) could be copied or moved to a new article about that subject... But I'm certainly no expert. FunkMonk (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
December 29th marked the end of the first round, after it was extended from its previously scheduled conclusion at the end of November. Because of the smaller pool of contestants this year, it was decided to keep sign-ups open throughout the month of December.
This extension proved to be very helpful as we saw that more users signed up and completed many reviews. Krishna Chaitanya Velaga earned an impressive 402 points, followed by Cartoon network freak with a close 338 points. Shearonink who signed up after our extension was in third with 170 points.
We had a rule clarification in Round 1 which was that many articles were being passed with blatant copyright violations and plagarism occurring in the articles. Thus, the judges have concluded that if an article is passed even if it has a copyright violation/plagarism, we will not provide points for that article as it wouldn't be considered a "complete review" under the scoring rules.
In the end, 94 articles were reviewed by 14 users who will all advance to Round 2. The judges had planned on having 16 contestants advance but since only 14 did, we are changing the pools in this round. We will be having 2 pools of 3 and 2 pools of 4 in Round 2, with the top 2 in each pool advancing to Round 3 as well as the top participant ("9th place") of all remaining competitors. Round 2 will begin on January 1 at 00:00:00 UTC and will end on January 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here.
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
Regarding this edit on the Achievements page, my intention, many years ago, was to provide context: the the blank cells have no dinosaurs from that era, while the cells where the word "none" appears were areas where there could be GAs/FAs in those categories, but were none. It wasn't done very well, obviously, and it's no problem that you removed that info, I just wanted to explain why the word "none" appeared in some of the cells in the table, and not others.
Thanks! Yeah, it seemed strange, because I added Limusaurus as a Jurassic ceratosaur, though that space previously said "none", so since there were obviously ceratosaurs in the jurassic (Ceratosaurus itself), I was thinking the intention might have been that there were no promoted articles that fit the bill. Which of course made it inconsistent with all the other empty slots that don't say "none"... But yeah, it could be re-added in the spaces where no members f said groups are known so far? FunkMonk (talk) 08:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Nemegtomaia 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 Ashorocetus -- Ashorocetus (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! We just had an edit conflict. Now I'll post what I have just finished writing:
Hello, Funk Monk - I have just finished copyediting Nemegtomaia. The article was interesting and quite well written. I only made a few small edits. I have a few questions for you:
1) I notice that in the lead you have "the Nemegt and Baruungoyot formations", but in the section Nemegtomaia#History of discovery you have "Nemegt Formation", with a capital "f" on "formation", and in the third paragraph of that section you have "Baruungoyot Formation", and later in the paragraph "Nemegt Formation", with "formation" capitalized. At the beginning of Nemegtomaia#Paleoecology, you have "Nemegt and Baruungoyot formations", with "formations" in lower case, and then again "Nemegt Formation" and "Baruungoyot Formation". It looks like you think "formation" should be in lower case if it is plural (following "Nemegt and Baruungoyot") but capitalized if it is singular. I don't think that is right. I think it should be capitalized in the plural phrase if it is capitalized in the singular phrase. What do you think?
2) As I was editing today (my second session of copy-editing the article), I came across a sentence in which a word was missing (it had to be a word like genus, genera, species, etc.), but now I can't find it. I would have liked to add the missing word, but I didn't want to guess which word it should be. It was in a discussion regarding in which category scientists/researchers would place a specimen. You may want to read through the article carefully to see if you can find it. If I remember, I will try to find it tomorrow if you haven't already found it.
I read through the classification section, which seems to be the most likely place for this, but couldn't find it. But I'll look out. FunkMonk (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
3) I notice that the word "found" appears often in this article, in its various meanings. I guess it is understandable because of the subject matter, but I'd like you to look at three sentences. They are the first sentences in the second paragraph in Nemegtomaia#History of discovery:
In 2004 Lü and colleagues found the skeleton to belong to a new, distinct taxon, and made it the holotype specimen of Nemegtia barsboldi. The genus name refers to the Nemegt Basin, and the species name honours the Mongolian palaeontologist Rinchen Barsbold, the leader of the team who found the specimen. In 2005 the describers found (after being notified by a biologist) that the name Nemegtia had already been used for a genus of freshwater seed shrimp (Ostracoda) from the same formation in 1978, and was therefore preoccupied.
I have highlighted the verb "found" in these sentences. In the first sentence, I think "found" means "determined", or "decided". However, since the very next sentence contains "found" (meaning "discovered"), I'm wondering whether you would consider changing the first one to:
In 2004 Lü and colleagues determined that the skeleton to belong to a new, distinct taxon, or
In 2004 Lü and colleagues decided that the skeleton to belong to a new, distinct taxon.
In the third sentence, "found" means "discovered", or "learned". I wonder if you would consider changing "found" to one of those:
In 2005 the describers discovered (after being notified by a biologist) that the name Nemegtia had already been used..., or
In 2005 the describers learned (after being notified by a biologist) that the name Nemegtia had already been used...
That way, each sentence would have a different verb, making for more interesting reading.
4) I saw many instances throughout the article where you first give a measurement in the metric system and then, in parentheses, the equivalent imperial measurement in inches, feet, pounds, etc. I notice also that you were careful to add the "no-break space" between the number and the abbreviation for the measurement. I don't know if you know about the conversion templates. If you didn't use them, you must have had a reason, but I thought, in case you didn't know about them, I would give you the link to the templates:
Converting units (height, weight, length, distance, speed, etc.) from one system to another:
Information about the conversion templates: {{convert}}
Note in Template:Convert, in the section "Round to a given number of significant figures", that you can select how many figures to the right of the decimal point you want to show, and to what degree you want to round a number up or down. That is helpful for displaying inches and keeping fractions of inches to reasonable numbers of digits. The nice thing about using the conversion template is that you don't have to worry about putting in the "no-break space", so it saves time. Also, if, for some reason, you have one number (either the metric or the imperial), but it's not the one you want to put first, you can use the conversion template, discover the equivalent measurement in preview, and then put that one first. Well, that's all. – Corinne (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
The non-breaking space was added by someone else, I do think conversion templates are the best way to go, but when I write in a hurry, I just write in the numbers directly, for speed... Bad habit, but I always just hope someone will take care of it later... FunkMonk (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd be glad to go through and add the conversion templates. Would you like me to do that? Also, once you get used to typing the basic conversion templates, you'll see it doesn't take that much time. – Corinne (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I think that's too specific, the category follows the naming conventions that have previously been used for other groups. Naming should be consistent. FunkMonk (talk) 08:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Sunday saw the end of Round 2. Shearonink took out Round 2 with an amazing score of 499. In second place, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga earned an astounding 236 points, and in third place, Cartoon network freak received 136 points. Originally, we had plans for one wild card for 9th place, however it appears that both Chris troutman and J Milburn were tied for 9th place. Therefore, we have decided to have both advance to Round 3.
In Round 2, 91 reviews were completed! At the beginning of this GA Cup, the longest wait was over 7 months; at the end of Round 2, the longest wait had decreased to a little over 6 months. It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 3 so we can keep decreasing the backlog.
To qualify for the third round, contestants had to earn the two highest scores in each of the four pools in Round 2; plus, one wildcard. For Round 3, users were placed in 3 random pools of 3. To qualify for the Final of the 3rd Annual GA Cup, the top user in each pool will progress, and there will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 4th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 3 has already started and will end on February 26 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here.
Also, we'd like to announce the departure of judge Zwerg Nase. We thank him for all his hardwork and hope to see him back in the future.
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
Hello, FunkMonk. Nemegtomaia, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Tahiti rail
I looked for Birds of French Polynesia; the closest I came was the review in the Journal of the Polynesian Society. Quoting Bruner the review has a different name for the Tahiti rail, Porzana tahitiensis, which also shows up in the catalogue of the British Museum's collection. Yet another name, Rallus tahitiensis, appears there as well. Taxonomy's not my strong point, so the relationships among all these aren't clear to me, but they might be worth a mention in the article. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 06:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, thanks, it confirms my suspicion that Bruner's account is somewhat unreliable... I'll see how I can incorporate it into the article. FunkMonk (talk) 09:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Nice, I can see it confirms some of the text already in the article, so it might be good for making the sourcing more robust... FunkMonk (talk) 09:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Deletion of my Cylindraspis photos!?
Hi FunkMonk,
Please explain why you removed my Cylindraspis photos from this article https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Saddle-backed_Rodrigues_giant_tortoise It looks like they were deleted too! I made a point of taking those photos myself for this article, so I'm put out that you've zapped them.
You wrote "Sadly, these images may not be releasable by photographers. Replaced." Does that mean that if I took these photos myself, then I cannot upload them? Is it prohibited to upload photos of sculptures in public areas? Please explain the rule to me, because I was under the impression that public area monuments could be photographed. Abu Shawka (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Interesting. But now these photos aren't "for commercial purposes". If commercial use is the issue, do the images not just need a different release license when uploaded, or can they just never legally be shared in public? Abu Shawka (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, that is an unfortunate issue with Wikipedia images, they have to be available for commercial use, for some reason... --FunkMonk (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
On 13 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nemegtomaia, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the oviraptorid dinosaur Nemegtomaia(pictured) brooded its eggs? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nemegtomaia. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Nemegtomaia), 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.
; see Talk:Stegoceras 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 IJReid -- IJReid (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Severn_Railway_Bridge.jpg){kind=link}
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) 20:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Pelagornis_sandersi_(artist_view).jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Aegirocassis_benmoulae_artist_view.jpg){kind=link}
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
![[11]](https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/9111679_f520.jpg){kind=link}
![[12]](http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3446/3927423134_37343412a5.jpg){kind=link}
![[13]](http://weknowyourdreams.com/image.php?pic=/images/lizard/lizard-05.jpg){kind=link}
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Nemegtomaia for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ashorocetus -- Ashorocetus (talk) 04:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)