User talk:Philcha/Archives/2011/September

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Portia labiata

I closed the GA for Portia labiata without listing it, because of inactivity at the GAN. I encourage you to list it again when it is improved. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 02:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Portia fimbriata GA

Congratulations on your GA for Portia fimbriata. The article is looking very good. I know you are not keen on collecting FAs, but if you were, this article would be very close. Anyway, nice work! Binksternet (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Binksternet, Talk:Portia labiata/GA1 was one of the most unpleasant experiences I've had at WP. Your congratulations here for the Portia fimbriata GA, like your "Cheers" at my Talk about Talk:Portia labiata/GA1, reeking of insincerity. Please do not bother me again. -Philcha (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Message received. Binksternet (talk) 01:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Good Article promotion

Congratulations!

Thanks for all the work you did in making Portia fimbriata a certified "Good Article"! That really is a very detailed and thorough article! (And that was certainly a detailed and thorough review.) Your work is much appreciated.

Thanks also for your reviews. Featured article candidates and Good Article nominees always need more reviewers! All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 19:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Wait, I'm... I'm very confused. This article was listed at the log as passing, but it doesn't seem to have passed, bizarrely. I'm not sure what's going on. Did this article pass or not? It seems like it should have, in my humble opinion. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

This diff shows GA bot adding {{good article}} and the Good Article icon on 01:18, 10 September 2011. The Talk page shows that User:Kaldari said "looks like a GA now" at 01:02, 10 September 2011, and GimmeBot updated {{ArticleHistory}} at 08:33, 10 September 2011. And Portia fimbriata no longer appears at WP:GAN. There must be some minor gotcha in the process. --Philcha (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the special-purpose barnstar - the topic was complex, but I enjoyed both the writing and the review. --Philcha (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Hurrah! – Quadell ^(talk) 20:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Chordates

Regarding basal craniates: okay, I understand. But wouldn't there room, SOMEwhere, for a mammal? I'm no biologist, and the article was quite confusing to me -- it seemed to indicate that chordata included all vertebrates of all kinds, but the selection of pictures suggested otherwise. I tried bringing it up on the talk page, but the discussion stopped after one comment. Would you have any ideas? Thanks! Korossyl (talk) 16:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Please excuse a suggestion from a talk-page watcher who hasn't watched that article: I wonder whether a reasonable solution might not be to replace the hagfish picture in the Craniates section with this picture taken from the vertebrate article. Looie496 (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Chordates:

Cephalochordata (Lancelets)
Urochordata (Tunicates)
Craniata
- Hagfish
- Lampreys (ambiguous)
- Fish
  - Jawless fish (? extinct)
  - Jawed fish
    - Sharks etc. (cartilageous)
    - Bony fish
      - Tetrapods
        Amphibians
        
        Amniotes
        Diapsids
        Lizards and snakes
        
        Crocodilians
        
        Dinosaurs (including birds)
        
        Synapsids
        Mammals

The problem is that mammals are at the end of a long family tree, and Chordate has no space for them. The box on the right omits basal groups at most level. --Philcha (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Remember that Chordates also includes non-craniates. --Philcha (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)