Talk:Pygmy slow loris

message: Hi, there is a recent publication about how sunlight and temperature affect slow loris' behaviour. I think the information there should be added to the article. Maybe User:Maky could do it. (If he had time, of course)  --Andresisrael (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for catching this.  I added the important information, but didn't touch upon the conclusions because this is a newly published primary source. – Maky « talk » 04:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New publication by Nakaris 

message: *Studbook records show that the youngest pygmy loris male to sire offspring was a little under 18 months of age, and two females have conceived at 16 months. -- 
*:The reference was originally the Husbandry manual so I changed it to this^ paper which I think is correct. I can only see the abstract which states the youngest male to sire offspring was 73 weeks, which is a bit over 16 and a half months so I've updated the article accordingly. I don't have access to the paper though so can't be any more specific than the page range.
*I don't have access to any of the remaining sources without page numbers so someone else will have to have a look at them.
Cheers, Jack (talk) 10:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This is kind of where I'm stuck.  Sasata wrote the article with those sources, and I think he's the only one that can get them.  If it hadn't been for this, I would have at least submitted it for GAN.  Thanks for taking the time on it, though. – Maky « talk » 00:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

text: I have the first one, and added a page number for it. However, do we really need page numbers for these short papers for GAN? It's not a GA requirement to have page numbers on even the shortest sources. Ucucha (talk) 12:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that! I think the other two are just referenced in other papers, doesn't that give the original reference a bit more weight anyway? Jack (talk) 12:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

text: The problem here is that  won't work unless you use the last (last name) parameter in the cite tags.  There can be similar confusion with Japanese, since given and surnames are reversed—hence "Yuki Midorikawa" would be an English representation of the name, and "Midorikawa Yuki" would be how the Japanese would write it.  Controversy or not, we need to pick something, otherwise the ref links won't work. – Maky « talk » 14:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, in this article we are already adjusting the names of Chinese authors for citation purposes (following the journals in which the articles were published).  I think it's only fair that we do the same for the Vietnamese names, which follow the same system. – Maky « talk » 17:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh I didn't realise it broke Sfn. Fair enough, bring on papers by Nguyen, Nguyen, & Nyguen!! It's incredible that nearly 40% of surnames are the same! Jack (talk) 12:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

text: In this edit I have removed the unknown page numbers and left the references to refer to the full papers/book. Page numbers are not a requirement of GAN so I think this is the best way to get it listed or else it might sit here forever! The page numbers can be hunted down or replaced if the article is taken through FAC. That means it's time for someone to nominate it :) I'm happy to help it along if needed. Cheers, Jack (talk) 09:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully Sasata can dig up his sources again and fix the page numbers.  Otherwise, once I fix a few more ref links, I can nominate it for GAN.  Thanks for all the hard work, Jack! – Maky « talk » 14:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright... I have either found page numbers or eliminated unneeded refs that lacked page numbers.  We need to put the "Literature cited" section in alphabetical order, which I'll do once Sasata is done editing.  Also, I don't like the following ref: "Biodiversity and Protected Areas – Viet Nam" (PDF). Earth Trend. 2003.  I'm not sure if it's reliable, and there appears to be conflicting numbers found here.  Should we delete this piece of information until we can find a more recent and reliable source?  – Maky « talk » 17:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; sourced axed. Sasata (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Good.  If Jack finds a better ref, we can add something back in along those lines.  I'll start sorting the refs now.  – Maky « talk » 17:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

text: Refs sorted.  Once Sasata is happy with the state of the article, I'll support GAN nomination. – Maky « talk » 17:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I put the article in the queue. Thanks for the kick in the butt guys; it'll be good to finally finish off the slow loris good topic! Sasata (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the help!  As for the good topic... well, I have two more B-class articles about the new species I need to polish up... – Maky « talk » 20:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page numbers of references 

message: I've fix the taxobox so that it shows the new genus. However, I can't figure out how to make it bold. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yay! New genus name!