Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

Hi LittleJerry: My recent thoughts were to think about doing some upgrade edits for your authorship efforts at Chimpanzee with some thought for a possible later further promotion effort. It occurred to me that the article might benefit by some cross-editing with the article for Chimpanzee genome project which should likely be somewhat upgraded and improved as well. That would allow for some much needed edits from Comparative genomics to be brought into the chimpanzee article as well, to make the timely comparisons with other hominids such as humans. What do you think? ErnestKrause (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have been strongly considering working on chimpanzee for FA recently, human's closet relatives need more representation. Though I'm running out of steam for FAC projects (tentatively thinking white shark may be my last, while remaining open to joining in on other people's projects). I'm in no hurry. Not sure if I'm interested in the genome project article. LittleJerry (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well if its a co-nomination for the chimpanzee article then it in theory would mean half the work on your part and half the work on my part, which would make it more attractive as an option. Are you saying that not even the Chimpanzee genome project would be of any contextual chimpanzee interest to you? ErnestKrause (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For FACS, I focus on the subject itself, maybe creating spin off articles like Polar bear conservation and Cultural depictions of tigers (which I did not write the text of). Genetics is very complicated for me. I can try I guess. LittleJerry (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, you want to edit the chimp article with the genome article or transfer information from the genome to the main article. The latter is problematic for bringing it to FAC because you don't know if the references really support the text. LittleJerry (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Of the 17 refs in the Chimpanzee genome project article, most all of them are not pay-blocked, and they appear to be from reliable sources like Nature magazine; it looks like its safe ground. The transfer information from that article into the main article for chimpanzees looks like it could be done responsibly; I'm especially interested at this moment in the chart there giving an A:B comparison of the human chromosomes to the chimpanzee chromosomes which looks like it would be a good addition to the main article. Humans and chimpanzees have only 1% difference in their genomes which I think will be appealing to readers to read about and learn more about. It might start looking like a good enhancement for the main article to include this type of chart and some of the supporting discussion. Thoughts? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:08, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, count me in on FAC. I've got something else to focus on now, but I'll get back you in a couple weeks to a month. LittleJerry (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds pretty good and the time frame works fairly well also. I'll start using the time to collect some of the sources and citations which might look good for the article. If there's time, then I might try to bring some of the material in and you can change back/modify/adjust as needed. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I purchased some books. I already own Jane Goodall's. LittleJerry (talk) 01:05, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds interesting; are you purchasing the books about their evolution or about their behavior. I'm giving some thought to copying over the A:B comparison graph of human chromosomes to chimpanzee chromosomes from the chimpanzee genomics page to the main Chimpanzee page, and maybe you could see if its worth doing. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I bought this, this and this LittleJerry (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Taht's really impressive as a list of books; I'll look for them at the local public library to check availability. After looking, then I'm likely have some follow up comments. That third one you mention appears to be from 1994. Cheers. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ErnestKrause, I think the Proteome section is too big. I would use the just the last paragraph but with an introductory sentence on FOXP2, on how it is important for language development in humans. Remember, we don't what to get too long and technical for average readers. LittleJerry (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've shortened those 3 paragraphs somewhat; maybe it looks improved. The other option is to move paragraph 2 of the 4 in Proteomics into the Genomics at the end, which would further shorten the Proteomics section. Let me know your thoughts or you can give the move of that paragraph a try. ErnestKrause (talk) 02:00, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We still have too much information that does not relate to chimpanzees. LittleJerry (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking that it would be nice to keep at least the first paragraph of the new Proteomics section if you think that 3-4 paragraphs is too much; I mean that's the trend now in molecular biology that you need to mention proteomics if you mention genomics. Can the article at least keep the one paragraph version of the new Proetomics section? ErnestKrause (talk) 02:47, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. LittleJerry (talk) 02:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Going with the short version now. I'm thinking of starting to expand the speech and language section toward the bottom of the article, in case you have any ideas for it. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:36, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Make it the last of the article? I don't think thats a good idea. LittleJerry (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As for the proteome, I think you should replace the first sentences with a summarization of the Yufan Wang article. LittleJerry (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll need to go along with you on that. Changed location of Yufan Wang. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see the function of the fourth paragraph of the Speech and language section. Why not just move the text to the chimpanzee genome article? LittleJerry (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

'Evolution of language' in humans seems important since it is development which is not paralleled in chimps either in speech or in sign language. The 'positive selection', also seems worth keeping as a significant process observed in evolution which has affected both chimps and humans. I've cut that 4th paragraph by half following your suggestion; can the remaining part be retained as least for this part. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ErnestKrause, I should be ready by at least the first week of March. LittleJerry (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like two weeks away. Happy Presidents Day in the meantime. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ErnestKrause, I don't think this is working out. While your great at history and art, editing animal articles is a different thing. I'm already going through hell with great white shark at FAC and I'm questioning whether I can do this one since it will be scrutinized even more. If I am to do this, it has to be with experienced biology editors who can really do heavy-lifting with this subject. Thank you for reaching out LittleJerry (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the though going you've been given at the shark FAC though hopefully you'll stick with the article. I'd like to continue with the chimpanzee article and if you would like to drop out at this time then that's ok; I'll try to find someone else to continue moving the article forward towards FAC. You can then at your option join in, either partially or otherwise, when the shark article is more along the way toward promotion. ErnestKrause (talk) 02:54, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well to be blunt, the way you're going about it now won't fly for FAC. In particular you keep citing popular books and books on human evolution. Why no acedemic books/peer reviewed articles on chimps? You shouldnt be gleaning information from sources where chimps are on the periphery where when there is a wealth of books and articles on the species. In addition, the information the genome and proteins would be ripped apart as jargon and technical.You should at least look at orangutan as a model for how to do a FA on a great ape.LittleJerry (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to return to this discussion after you have completed the shark FAC and dealt with all the hard time the editors are giving you there. I'm suggesting to hold up on further edits to the chimpanzee article until the shark article is completed. Does that sound ok? ErnestKrause (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah okay. LittleJerry (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ErnestKrause, back in business. LittleJerry (talk) 23:42, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LittleJerry and congrats on the tough time you were given to get the Shark article promotion. I've given a read through on the Orangutan article you asked me to look at, with a good deal of interest. I'm thinking that there might be some good discussion on bringing the chimpanzee article and the Orangutan article on an equal footing. Ready to discuss it? ErnestKrause (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You mean changing the orangutan article too? No. we shouldn't do that. LittleJerry (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The orangutan article is at FA and my comment is more about how close the chimpanzee article is to nomination. As I've been looking at revisions which major authors have made to successive editions of their books on developmental biology for various animals, then they are fairly consistent in adding new chapters to cover both genomics and proteomics to their respective table of contents in new editions of their older books. The chimpanzee article does well I think to follow this type of example; how close or how far do you see the nomination of the chimpanzee article at this point in time? ErnestKrause (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've already laid out the tasks we need to do at the talk page. I asked you to work on conservation, use in research and field study sections. What we have with genetics and evolution is enough. Proteomics is not important and is too technical for causal readers of this high profile article. You'll have to follow my lead on this one. LittleJerry (talk) 02:38, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming the only one you are interested in the list I've left on the chimpanzee Talk page is the one dealing with Jane Goodall's work on providing chimpanzee vaccine protection to conserve their numbers and its related topics? ErnestKrause (talk) 02:53, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but don't focus on it too much. A couple sentences or a small paragraph. I'd recommend doing it this way: (1) Start with its current IUCN status and why is has that status, possibly including population declines (2) discuss the major threats to the species, (3) get into protections and conservation measures. LittleJerry (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Possibly you could bring in the part about the virus innoculations into the chimpanee article in a format you are comfortable with based on the RS I've included on the Talk page there. I'll start in on the research for the IUCN endangered species listing along with the emphasis there upon Western chimpanzees as critically endangered since 2021 here [1] and here [2]. Conservation section now up to four paragraph if that's useful. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

From your revert on the article today; then does the other revert of the lede edit I've made yesterday look correct to you? Similarly, let me know if you need assistance with Aspergillus. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've filed an SPI on them. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And they are now blocked, along with a goodlyhandful of other accounts. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ErnestKrause I think the lede paragraphs are fine for now. LittleJerry (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LittleJerry; I've added the vaccinations edit to the article as planned from last week. Its looking like the article might be approaching submission for peer review either later this week or next; any thoughts? ErnestKrause (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I been sidetracked. I don't think we are close yet. I'm not done with Ecology yet and still have to do behavior. I don't think we can rush this. You haven't made it clear whether you spot-checked the other sections. LittleJerry (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No rush on this surely. I've done the read through on Intelligence and my mark ups there; also I've added the polio vaccination arguments from Goodall which I had in mind as well. Looking forward to see how your next section reviews in the article look to you. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'll finish off ecology this week. How about you spotcheck the Humans relations section? LittleJerry (talk) 01:19, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are six sections in it, and I've just done the expansion to the HIV section which looks ok now. Regarding the other five sections, then they seem adequately sourced and all formatted; did you have any particualr thoughts or concerns about them? ErnestKrause (talk) 05:13, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Let I said. Everything most be spot checked. Never assume the text accuracy reflects the citations when going for a FAC. LittleJerry (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a closer look at it (the subsections of 'Human relations') and the citations seem to be holding up. There may be a concern about the first 2 paragraphs in that first subsection, each of which go on for 5-6 sentences and then give a single citation, one for each paragraph. The citation does seem contain all of the information discussed though it uses only a single citation for the first paragraph and then a single citation for the second paragraph. Looks ok to you? ErnestKrause (talk) 03:44, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. If the citations support all the information, then I don't see the problem with the number. LittleJerry (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Next? ErnestKrause (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to set Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary). Thanks! MossOnALog^Talk 21:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary: "we don't cite the iucn for anything other than conservation stuff" - I'm going to call ^{[citation needed]} on that. Seems perfectly valid to me. There's a lot of good data in there, you shouldn't just dismiss it out of hand - MPF (talk) 13:04, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. There's better sources for discussions on the maximum size of the white shark and you shouldn't add cites to the lead. LittleJerry (talk) 13:10, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Like what? I'd far rather trust a scientific group like IUCN than some dodgy website using nonscientific measurements (which is where the current length appears to come from). Oh, and by the way, when are you restoring the page's original engvar? I'll be happy to do so; it needs to be done, per MOS:RETAIN - MPF (talk) 14:45, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You can do that but make it Australian English not Oxford. And I don't know what you mean by "dodgy" website. LittleJerry (talk) 14:48, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Will do, though I'd like to see what Mazewaxie says too (he hasn't responed yet; I'll ask on his page). 'Oxford' English is widely used by a lot of scientific journals and books, it isn't limited to Oxford, or particularly linked to the UK. By 'dodgy' I mean sites that use nonscientific measurements; unscientific unit use and unscientific rationale have a strong tendency to overlap (it's most conspicuous in climate change discussions, but often applies generally). - MPF (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LJ, it seems like you've become a bit frustrated with my review, and I want to apologise for reviewing when a bit too tired. I tend to review articles when I'm a bit tired on purpose, as I find it useful to check whether articles are too complicated for people who do not fully focus on it. I didn't quite realise how tired I was yesterday however. One of the reasons I wanted to do a second read of the article is that I did notice my eyes were glazing over the longer paragraphs and sentences yesterday. Will be more awake upon a the second read! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fine. I'm sorry i got nippy. LittleJerry (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Core Contest—Wikipedia's most exciting contest—returns again this year from April 15 to May 31. The goal: to improve vital or other core articles, with a focus on those in the worst state of disrepair. Editing can be done individually, but in the past groups have also successfully competed. There is £300 of prize money divided among editors who provide the "best additive encyclopedic value". Signups are open now. Cheers from the judges, Femke, Casliber, Aza24.

If you wish to start or stop receiving news about The Core Contest, please add or remove yourself from the delivery list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:20, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to participate in the Destubathon of the Americas, a contest/editathon which will run from May 1 to May 31. The goal is to destub as many of our 475,000+ stubs for the Americas (from Alaska down to Chile) as possible. A good chance to have fun in expanding many of our old stale stubs and win up to £2000 ($2680) in Amazon vouchers for expanding stub articles. Sign up in the Contestants/participants section on the contest page if interested. Even if not interested in prizes you are still warmly welcome to participate in it as an editathon! Hopefully we can achieve something significant in the month of May together! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:13, 15 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, LittleJerry! The article you nominated, Great white shark, 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, David Fuchs (talk) via FACBot (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that Tiger has been scheduled as today's featured article for 29 July 2026. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 2026, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/July 2026. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be posted there. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! Z1720 (talk) 17:04, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]