554:
I use "pp." when there is no volume number (i.e., when I am citing a book, not a periodical). It goes before the page numbers for a chapter (i.e., Chapter. Pp. 5–30 in Book.) and after for a whole book (i.e., Book. City: Publisher. 200 pp.). It makes sense to me because one would say "pages 5 to 30"
497:
Regardless of the italics issue, one reference notes "620" at the end of the reference as the page number, one notes "Pp. 725–795" after the page title as the page number, another notes "211 pp" at the end of the reference (which, under any style I know, is simply wrong) as the page number. There is
564:
Ok, starting to make sense to me; certainly not what I'd choose, but I can respect the right of article authors to reference in a way that feels comfortable to them, as long as it's consistent. I still feel fairly strongly that the journal titles should be italicised- I can't see an article on an
168:
This is a good old rice rat, from
Jamaica this time. It's one of the many insular animal species that have gone extinct in the last few centuries. We know relatively much about it, but most of that knowledge is buried in the older literature. This article was GA reviewed by Daniel Cavallari; I am
328:
And, for what it's worth, it wasn't a slippery slope argument, I was just pointing out that I couldn't see any relevant difference. Compare- if a school allowed students to have dyed brown hair, because it's a "natural colour", one could argue they should also allow other "natural colours". That
443:
20 previous passed FACs and similar to the styles of many journals in this field—most do not quote article names, or italicize journals. Things like ISSNs or DOIs aren't available for old citations; and the links provided are purely convenience links for printed citations, and thus do not need
555:
in the first case and "200 pages" in the second. (In this article, there is one (Long, 1774) that is slightly different, because it is a volume of a larger work that is cited, with the pages numbered continuously across the volumes; I am open to suggestions for improvement on that one.)
579:
Oh, I'll probably come across the same way. :-) As I (partly) said before, there are many journals in mammalogy and other branches of biology which don't italicize journal titles in the references (though some do), even though they do italicize journal titles elsewhere (see
304:
That's a nice slippery slope argument. However, the
Chicago Manual of Style actually allows this construction (section 5.162: "the preposition can end a clause, especially a relative clause, or sentence {this isn’t the pen that Steve writes with}").
390:
The only secondary source to have discussed this I believe is Ray (1962), and the article summarizes what he said. In many cases, we simply don't know; it's easy enough to distinguish introduced mice and rats (let alone water voles) from
289:
Yes, it's been joked about plenty of times, but unless wir wln 2 pt ^ wid wtvr ppl wanna zay, we should not be accepting it here. We're doing our best to be a serious reference work, and this kind of nonsense does not reflect on us well.
482:). The MOS page does not say they should be, only that they can be, and again, several FAs have passed with non-italicized journals. Accessdates would just be distracting, and it is conventional not to give them in cases like this (cf.
461:
that article titles should have quote marks. I don't mind so much about the quote marks, but the journals should definitely be italicised and the page numbering style should be consistent. Accessdates, as I said, would also be nice.
379:"The oldest well-dated record of Oryzomys antillarum is at Drum Cave in the Jacksons Bay Caves system, where it was found in a stratum radiocarbon dated to between 10,250 and 11,260 years before present." When was this found?
1014:
I think I also read that a few times, but Ray considers it unlikely; all indications are that it was already rare by the 19th century and any sugarcane pest more likely would have been one of the introduced rats and mice.
329:
would be perfectly valid, it would be the person making the rules acting inconsistently otherwise. A slippery slope argument would be "if we allow brown hair today, it'll be purple hair and nose piercings tomorrow".
525:
I see practically no rhyme or reason to what you're saying, if I'm honest. I'm willing to trust you that it makes sense, but, hell, it doesn't look right to me with my
Knowledge eyes, nor with my academia eyes.
117:
277:
1008:
993:
1003:
are nocturnal. It is possible that insular species become diurnal in the absence of predators, but I would prefer a source that provides more explicit support for its speculations.
343:
Butting in - I am perfectly happy ending a sentence with a preposition. There is an old joke "Ending a sentence with a preposition is something with which I shall not put up"
893:
Why not? The classification is attributed explicitly to
Carleton and Arroyo-Cabrales, who do indeed list it as one of the eight species of the genus. Thanks for the review!
885:
Oryzomys antillarum is one of eight species in the genus
Oryzomys, which occurs from the eastern United States (O. palustris) into northwestern South America (O. gorgasi)
428:. The way you note the page numbers is inconsistent, and a lot of the articles lack any identification (DOI? ISSN?). Those with external links should have access dates.
999:
That is likely enough, but it must be speculation, and I wouldn't consider that a high-quality source on biology. It also says it was diurnal, even though other
476:
There is no such inconsistency in page numbering, but books are treated differently from journals (in a way similar, for example, to the citation style of the
40:
387:
The historical records section is really interesting, but it's not too clear which (if any) of the listed species are hypothesised to be this one.
88:
83:
424:
Actually, only just noticed, my biggest gripe is the formatting on the sourcing. Article names should be "quoted", while journal names should be
719:
Google
Scholar produces many papers titled "A review of the genus ...". In any case, I've reworded to avoid the issue. Thanks for your support.
92:
218:"from where it" Was going to recommend "from whence", but that is apparently considered archaic. It is, however, apparently, very formal. See
565:
album getting through without the album title italicised, nor a film, nor a species, etc etc. Sorry if I've come across a little stubborn...
30:
17:
75:
1028:
1019:
967:
917:
897:
874:
843:
827:
723:
651:
642:
598:
574:
559:
549:
535:
520:
507:
492:
478:
471:
448:
437:
418:
358:
338:
323:
309:
299:
284:
271:
247:
208:
190:
173:
160:
512:
I treat chapters in a book (pp. before the pages) differently from whole books (after); that is the same style as (for example) the
225:
I'm not particularly attached to the current wording, but I don't think "whence" (which indeed sounds very archaic) is much better.
133:
913:
870:
354:
243:
138:
1024:
It would not have been the only error in that piece, by the way. What they say on Galápagos rice rats is almost all wrong.
666:— It's a pity that the useful word "whence" has fallen into disuse. Even I would acknowledge that, and I'm archaic myself.
688:
archaic now. "This is something I can deal with" is better modern prose than "This is something with which I can deal"
79:
278:
Knowledge:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2007_November_21#Are_prepositions_ending_a_sentence_really_so_bad?
889:. - erm, well no as it is extinct - need to reword to reflect this "found in historical times"? or somesuch?
395:
with a quick look at their teeth, but those 18th- and 19th-century naturalists didn't know much about that.
712:
He may have "studied" the animal, but I'm not sure that you can "review" an animal, as opposed to a book
540:
Actually, wait. Explain this to me. Where do you place the page numbers? When and how do you use "pp"?
822:
637:
590:
570:
545:
531:
503:
467:
433:
414:
334:
319:
295:
267:
204:
71:
64:
907:
864:
840:
673:
Compare above. I'm tempted to actually put "whence" there; the current wording is far from ideal.
348:
237:
458:
454:
53:
1025:
1016:
963:
894:
720:
648:
595:
581:
556:
517:
489:
484:
445:
382:
McFarlane et al. (2002). I actually forgot to add that reference to the list; corrected now.
306:
281:
259:
The current wording is standard
English as far as I am aware, and sounds better to my ears.
170:
157:
752:
Clarified. The things are called supraorbital ridges, and merit an article under that name.
409:
Generally pretty good- you have weird interests! Very nicely sourced and well illustrated.
809:
despite colonial spelling of "coloured" (: Note that I'm still not convinced that you can
186:
815:
630:
566:
541:
527:
499:
463:
429:
410:
330:
315:
291:
263:
200:
982:
903:
860:
836:
344:
233:
109:
959:
219:
182:
585:
976:
It means "of the
Antilles", but no source discusses it as far as I'm aware.
938:- sounds awkward " disproves the hypothesis that it was introduced;" maybe?
594:, for example—I went through my PDFs on oryzomyines to look for examples).
775:
Used your wording (but corrected that atrocious spelling of "colored" ;-).
788:— can you exterminate a habitat? I'd apply the verb only to living things
199:
all look fine- nice work taking advantage of crazy laws for PD stuff :P
765:
more reddish than even the most strongly coloured animals from
Florida.
684:— Conversely, the rule about not ending a sentence with a preposition
400:"the latter are well adapted to" to which the latter are well adapted
453:
Our MOS is pretty clear that journal names should be italicised (see
39:
Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in
835:- sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool.
314:
Fair enough. Makes my eyes burn, but who am I to argue with them?
262:
No, it isn't. You shouldn't end a sentence with a preposition.
228:
It'd be "whence" not "from whence" - I like the word but it is
996:
says its diet included seeds, grass, fruit and invertebrates
761:
more reddish than even the most reddish animals from
Florida.
442:
The citations of this article are styled exactly as in : -->
276:
It's something many linguists are perfectly OK with. See
143:
902:
D'oh, my bad - I see the "occurs" relates to teh genus.
118:
Featured article candidates/Oryzomys antillarum/archive1
105:
101:
97:
57:
705:
He actually studied the animal itself, for all I know.
1043:The above discussion is preserved as an archive.
934:falsifies the hypothesis that it was introduced;
740:— redlinked and unexplained. What's wrong with
628:Just a few points to mention before I support.
256:"he did not know of" of which he did not know.
43:. No further edits should be made to this page.
1049:No further edits should be made to this page.
29:The following is an archived discussion of a
8:
498:an inconsistency here, as far as I can see.
786:native habitat of Oryzomys was exterminated
973:what is the meaning of the specific name?
958:Article looks great! Just a few comments:
122:
41:Knowledge talk:Featured article candidates
763:— can the repetition be avoided? Perhaps
692:In 1993, Gary Morgan reviewed the animal
222:. That's actually fairly interesting...
181:No problems with dablinks or deadlinks.
125:
115:
169:looking forward to your reviews here.
18:Knowledge:Featured article candidates
7:
981:should there be a link somewhere to
682:received a name he did not know of.
680:Grammar note 2 (no action needed).
662:Grammar note 1 (no action needed).
647:Thanks, as always, for the review.
1011:says it was a "pest of sugarcane"
514:Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology
479:Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology
457:). Further down the same page, it
24:
664:from where it may have dispersed
696:...the literature on the animal
1029:17:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
1020:17:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
968:16:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
918:20:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
898:11:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
875:04:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
844:13:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
828:12:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
724:12:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
652:12:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
643:10:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
599:15:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
575:10:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
560:23:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
550:23:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
536:23:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
521:23:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
508:23:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
493:17:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
472:17:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
449:17:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
438:16:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
419:16:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
359:04:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
339:06:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
324:23:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
310:23:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
300:23:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
285:17:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
272:17:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
248:04:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
209:15:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
191:14:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
174:14:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
161:14:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
1:
813:an animal, even a rice rat
31:featured article nomination
1066:
56:21:39, 16 September 2010
1046:Please do not modify it.
985:in the history section?
36:Please do not modify it.
797:Change to "destroyed".
488:, among many others).
742:ridges above the eyes
586:10.1093/jhered/esn105
857:reading through now
738:supraorbital ridges
591:Journal of Heredity
214:Ok, taking a read-
72:Oryzomys antillarum
65:Oryzomys antillarum
164:
151:
150:
1057:
1048:
859:- queries below
825:
818:
640:
633:
485:Suillus brevipes
154:
123:
113:
95:
48:The article was
38:
1065:
1064:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1044:
823:
816:
638:
631:
280:, for example.
86:
70:
68:
34:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1063:
1061:
1052:
1051:
1038:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1006:
1005:
1004:
991:
990:
989:
979:
978:
977:
948:
947:
946:
945:
944:
943:
927:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
921:
920:
878:
877:
847:
846:
830:
803:
802:
801:
800:
799:
798:
781:
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
770:
769:
756:
755:
754:
753:
747:
746:
733:
732:
731:
730:
729:
728:
727:
726:
714:
713:
707:
706:
700:
699:
689:
677:
676:
675:
674:
668:
667:
657:
656:
655:
654:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
611:
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
605:
604:
603:
602:
601:
407:
406:
405:
404:
398:
397:
396:
385:
384:
383:
377:
376:
375:
374:
373:
372:
371:
370:
369:
368:
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
362:
361:
254:
253:
252:
251:
250:
212:
211:
166:
165:
156:Nominator(s):
149:
148:
147:
146:
144:External links
141:
136:
128:
127:
121:
120:
67:
62:
61:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1062:
1050:
1047:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1030:
1027:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1018:
1013:
1012:
1010:
1007:
1002:
998:
997:
995:
992:
987:
986:
984:
983:Rafting event
980:
975:
974:
972:
971:
970:
969:
965:
961:
957:
956:
952:
941:
940:
939:
936:
935:
931:
930:
929:
928:
919:
915:
912:
909:
905:
901:
900:
899:
896:
892:
891:
890:
887:
886:
882:
881:
880:
879:
876:
872:
869:
866:
862:
858:
855:
854:
849:
848:
845:
842:
838:
834:
831:
829:
826:
821:
819:
812:
808:
805:
804:
796:
795:
794:
793:
792:
791:
790:
789:
787:
774:
773:
772:
771:
768:
766:
762:
758:
757:
751:
750:
749:
748:
745:
743:
739:
735:
734:
725:
722:
718:
717:
716:
715:
711:
710:
709:
708:
704:
703:
702:
701:
697:
693:
690:
687:
683:
679:
678:
672:
671:
670:
669:
665:
661:
660:
659:
658:
653:
650:
646:
645:
644:
641:
636:
634:
627:
624:
623:
600:
597:
593:
592:
587:
583:
578:
577:
576:
572:
568:
563:
562:
561:
558:
553:
552:
551:
547:
543:
539:
538:
537:
533:
529:
524:
523:
522:
519:
515:
511:
510:
509:
505:
501:
496:
495:
494:
491:
487:
486:
481:
480:
475:
474:
473:
469:
465:
460:
456:
452:
451:
450:
447:
444:accessdates.
441:
440:
439:
435:
431:
427:
423:
422:
421:
420:
416:
412:
402:
401:
399:
394:
389:
388:
386:
381:
380:
378:
360:
356:
353:
350:
346:
342:
341:
340:
336:
332:
327:
326:
325:
321:
317:
313:
312:
311:
308:
303:
302:
301:
297:
293:
288:
287:
286:
283:
279:
275:
274:
273:
269:
265:
261:
260:
258:
257:
255:
249:
245:
242:
239:
235:
231:
227:
226:
224:
223:
221:
217:
216:
215:
210:
206:
202:
198:
195:
194:
193:
192:
188:
184:
180:
176:
175:
172:
163:
162:
159:
153:
152:
145:
142:
140:
137:
135:
132:
131:
130:
129:
124:
119:
116:
114:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
66:
63:
60:
58:
55:
51:
44:
42:
37:
32:
27:
26:
19:
1045:
1042:
1037:
1000:
954:
953:
950:
949:
937:
933:
932:
910:
888:
884:
883:
867:
856:
852:
850:
832:
814:
810:
806:
785:
783:
782:
764:
760:
759:
741:
737:
736:
695:
691:
685:
681:
663:
629:
625:
589:
513:
483:
477:
425:
408:
392:
351:
240:
229:
213:
196:
178:
177:
167:
155:
139:Citation bot
69:
54:SandyGeorgia
49:
47:
35:
28:
994:this source
824:talk to me?
639:talk to me?
767:or similar
426:italicised
232:archaic...
230:definitely
817:Jimfbleak
632:Jimfbleak
567:J Milburn
542:J Milburn
528:J Milburn
500:J Milburn
464:J Milburn
455:this page
430:J Milburn
411:J Milburn
403:As above.
331:J Milburn
316:J Milburn
292:J Milburn
264:J Milburn
201:J Milburn
1001:Oryzomys
914:contribs
904:Casliber
871:contribs
861:Casliber
853:Comments
851:Support
837:Ealdgyth
833:Comments
626:Comments
393:Oryzomys
355:contribs
345:Casliber
244:contribs
234:Casliber
179:Comment.
134:Analysis
50:promoted
955:Comment
951:Support
807:Support
588:in the
126:Toolbox
89:protect
84:history
1026:Ucucha
1017:Ucucha
988:Added.
960:Sasata
895:Ucucha
811:review
721:Ucucha
649:Ucucha
596:Ucucha
557:Ucucha
518:Ucucha
516:uses.
490:Ucucha
446:Ucucha
307:Ucucha
282:Ucucha
197:Images
171:Ucucha
158:Ucucha
93:delete
942:Sure.
459:notes
183:PL290
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
1009:this
964:talk
908:talk
865:talk
841:Talk
571:talk
546:talk
532:talk
504:talk
468:talk
434:talk
415:talk
349:talk
335:talk
320:talk
296:talk
268:talk
238:talk
220:here
205:talk
187:talk
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
582:doi
52:by
966:)
916:)
873:)
839:-
820:-
784::*
694:—
686:is
635:-
573:)
548:)
534:)
506:)
470:)
436:)
417:)
357:)
337:)
322:)
298:)
270:)
246:)
207:)
189:)
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
59:.
33:.
962:(
911:·
906:(
868:·
863:(
744:?
698:?
584::
569:(
544:(
530:(
502:(
466:(
432:(
413:(
352:·
347:(
333:(
318:(
294:(
266:(
241:·
236:(
203:(
185:(
112:)
74:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.