![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Hi and welcome! I notice that many or all of your stub articles are in the format: x is a species of scientific name ("common name"), in the larger group scientific name ("common name"). To me this seems a bit redundant and clunky to read. It's more common on Wikipedia for articles to simply read " Notoxus montanus is a species of ant-like flower beetles native to North America", or " Notoxus montanus is a species of beetle in the family Anthicidae." In most cases, an article on a species needn't mention the suborder, nor superfamily, etc. in introductory text (see Good Articles like Emerald ash borer or Polistes exclamans for exemplars). It's somewhat a matter of style and preference, but the quotes and common names (especially cumbersome ones like "water, rove, scarab, long-horned, leaf and snout beetles") can seem a bit tacked on and pandering. Also, please note that BugGuide is a user-generated source, and should generally not be used as a reference as it is edited by the community and can change in an instant, rendering it unreliable. A better alternative could be to add {{ taxonbar}} to taxon articles, which contains external links to several common taxonomic resources (including EOL, ITIS, GBIF, Bug Guide and others), and draw more heavily form the journals and book references. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a database or directory, and so the print/journal references you include (and any prose) are far more valuable than largely redundant links to EOL and ITIS (which in turn often draw from or link to each other, and Wikipedia, creating a potential vortex of circular unreliability!).
Lastly, a couple of suggestions for finishing touches on each stub or article you create: 1) create the corresponding Talk page, adding, for instance, {{WikiProject Insects|class=stub|importance=low}}
, and 2) syncing the article with
interlanguage links if they exist: Cebuanao and Swedish Wikipedia have a large amount of taxon articles bot-scraped from online databases. Interlanguage linking also allows the taxonbar to be autofilled. These two steps help facilitate user and machine access to articles, and reduce the work load for other editors. Cheers!
--Animalparty! (
talk)
09:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Thank you for all the work you have put into creating beetle-related article. FITINDIA 23:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC) |
Thanks for creating Dicerca hesperoborealis, Edibobb!
Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Just FYI, taxoboxes should generally only include major ranks or those discussed in the article, per Template:Taxobox#Classification. Excessive extraneous info should be minimized. You might also check out the Template:Automatic taxobox, which automatically updates every time, say, a taxon is reassigned to a new subterclass, parvorder, or infrafamily.
To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
--Animalparty! ( talk) 04:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for creating Leptoypha, Edibobb!
Wikipedia editor Enwebb just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Thanks for fleshing out insect taxonomy!
To reply, leave a comment on Enwebb's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Enwebb ( talk) 03:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for creating List of Neohydatothrips species, Edibobb!
Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
To be honest, we probably don't need separate lists of species for genera unless they exceed like a hundred. Centralized info is better than a billion scattered stubs.
To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
--Animalparty! ( talk) 04:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for creating Mipseltyrus nicolayi, Edibobb!
Wikipedia editor Usernamekiran just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
If possible, could you please add one line in main body, in a new section? That would automatically create a "lead" section, and a body. Thanks :)
To reply, leave a comment on Usernamekiran's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
—usernamekiran (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello! Thanks for you pages on various insect taxa. It would be great if you could add the authority of the taxon in the taxobox. You can do this by making a parameter with the rank of the taxon, and then "_authority" after it. For example, I would add "|species_authority=Linnaeus, 1758" to the end of the taxobox if a taxon was described by Linnaeus in 1758. Hope that helps! RileyBugz 私に叫ぼう 私の編集 20:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Honestly speaking, I am not much good with that "authority control" myself lol. Please feel free to ask
RileyBugz about it if you want to.
Your creations are very good. Even though it is not a problem, you should be mindful about
WP:ORPH, and specially about
WP:GARDEN. The field in which you are creating articles, is very prone to "garden" issue, and it is also difficult to detect, so the best thing is to avoid it while creation, or remember to avoid it later. If there are any questions/doubts (about anything) please feel free to ask. :) —usernamekiran
(talk)
20:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Edibobb, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! TonyBallioni ( talk) 16:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Peter coxhead, Plantdrew, and William Avery: This is in relation to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Adding Species Stub Articles and discussion above.
I thought of something else. There's an effort to gradually replace {{ Taxobox}} with {{ Speciesbox}} and some related templates. I don't know much about it, but I've seen work by many others to make the transition. It might be better to start your new articles with Speciesbox, etc. I'm pinging a couple of people who I've seen working on this to see if they have any suggestions. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 06:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, Edibobb! Thank you for
your contributions. I am
SchreiberBike and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on
my talk page. You can also check out
Wikipedia:Questions or type {{
help me}}
at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! SchreiberBike | ⌨ 04:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks again for the information! I'll put a message on the Tree of Life page. I wasn't even familiar with it. I did put a message on the Arthropod project page and there was favorable response, but only from a couple of people.
I did wonder about whether putting up a bunch of stubs will help. I think in the long run it should. It will resolve a bunch of dead internal links, and more importantly, with references it should make it easier for people to expand the articles as opposed to creating a new article.
Once again, thanks for your assistance!
Bob Webster ( talk) 01:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing Carteris oculatalis, Edibobb.
Unfortunately Jimfbleak has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:
unused refs
To reply, leave a comment on Jimfbleak's talk page.
Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Euphranta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fruit fly ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, at Template:Taxonomy/Atysites, setting the rank to "zoosectio" (the correct value for a zoological section) causes an anomaly in the rank order. A zoological section is supposed to be a rank above the family level. I note that BugGuide has "No Taxon (Section Atysites)", i.e. it's not actually treating "Section Atysites" as a rank. I think the best we can do is to declare Atysites to be "unranked". ITIS and the other taxonomy websites given as sources don't contain Atysites, so the other option is to omit it altogether from the taxonomic hierarchy. Peter coxhead ( talk) 22:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Ranks must be Latin in taxonomy templates (as e.g. Template:Taxonomy/Entomobryomorpha); there's a list at WP:Autotaxobox/ranks. The system may seem to work with English rank names but some features don't. Peter coxhead ( talk) 08:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I see on
Acanthepeira cherokee you used {{Taxonbar|from=Q2190081}}
, which populated
Category:Taxonbar templates desynced from Wikidata, but I think you meant {{Taxonbar|from1=Q48975997|from2=Q2190081}}
? The |from=
/|from1=
parameter is meant to be the main Wikidata QID pointing to the Wikipedia page, and |from2=
, |from3=
, etc., are used for synonymous/alternate Wikidata items that are related to the page. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf)
13:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I see that {{ Taxonomy/Antonina}} links to the dab page Antonina. I tried to fix it but that page only lists a plant (no mealybugs). I also don't want to make edits that might mess up, or be undone by, some automated process. {{ Taxonomy/Pulvinaria}} has a similar problem, though there Pulvinaria (insect) is the obvious choice. Please can you help? Thanks, Certes ( talk) 15:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I've noticed some incomplete taxonomy templates in some of your recent articles. E.g. the families Template:Taxonomy/Cleidogonidae and Template:Taxonomy/Tingupidae have the subpyhylum Myriapoda as parent, omitting the lower rank of Order Chordeumatida. Please double check your taxonomy so that appropriate major ranks are included. Thanks. --Animalparty! ( talk) 06:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Your recent bot approval request has been approved for a trial. Please see the BRFA for more details. Thanks! ~ Rob13 Talk 06:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Is that article about or Eremochrysa or Hister? Not clear to me :-)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rivellia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Signal fly ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Please, where in the world did you get this information: " Proctotrupidae is a family of ants, bees, wasps and sawflies in the order Hymenoptera. There are about 11 genera and 12 described species in Proctotrupidae."? Is this vandalism or an accident? -- Polinizador ( talk) 02:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
FYI I was running my ref cleanup script over pages you made recently (oldest was ~early Feb) and found the most common fixes to be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Just thought you'd like/want to know ffr, in case they haven't already been taken care of. Nice work! ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 00:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Congrats on the extended trial!
Would you mind if Category:Articles begun by Qbugbot was renamed to Category:Articles created by Qbugbot? ' Articles created' is the standard naming convention rather than ' Articles begun'. I didn't want to do this myself, since it requires a corresponding Qbugbot code change. Thanks! ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 18:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I have processed the speedy renaming of Category:Articles begun by Qbugbot to Category:Articles created by Qbugbot. Since it is a tracking category rather than a content category, I have also tagged it as a {{ hidden category}} and removed it from Category:Arthropods. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I was very pleased to see you've received approval for your arthropod bot. Having expressed my support at WP:VPR, it now seems appropriate to follow up by offering you any assistance I can in quality checking as you roll this out. I'm more of a botanist, and not an entomologist (and know nothing of North American biodiversity), but please ping me if you have any monitoring tasks you'd like help with.
And as an aside, may I observe that I don't think the intros to List of Tingini genera, List of Leiodes species etc quite sufficiently explain to a non expert to what the lists relate? Maybe something like: This is a list of 121 species in the genus Leiodes,[1][2][3] - a group of beetles within the class Insecta (or phylum Arthropoda). would give greater clarity? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes ( talk) 00:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Enwebb. Edibobb, thanks for creating Tingini!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please do not copy and paste directly from a source, as that is plagiarism!
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Enwebb ( talk) 01:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
ITIS produced data and information are in the public domain. While the content of many ITIS web pages is in the public domain, some ITIS pages contain material that is copyrighted by others and used by ITIS with permission. You may need to obtain permission from the copyright owner for other uses. Furthermore, some ITIS data, products, and information linked, or referred to, from this site may be protected under U.S. and foreign copyright laws. You may need to obtain permission from the copyright owner to acquire, use, reproduce, or distribute these materials. It is the sole responsibility of you, the user of this site, to carefully examine the content of ITIS and all linked pages for copyright restrictions and to secure all necessary permissions.
<!-- This section is copy-pasted from public domain -->
so that editors/new-page patrollers don't think it's plagiarism. I apologize for my error!
Enwebb (
talk)
04:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Bob, and
Enwebb; I think the easiest way to add PD attribution is to add {{
PD-notice}} right before closing ref tag. Like in the following example:<ref name="nga.mil">{{cite web|url=https://www.nga.mil/About/History/NGAinHistory/Pages/MajGenWilliamKJames.aspx|title=Maj. Gen. William K. James|website=www.nga.mil}}{{PD-notice}}</ref>
Also, it is difficult to fill in the bare refs manually. I usually add bare refs first, then fill it up with refill, and then add the pd notice. You can see a live example at William K. James.
Also also, you should set-up miszabot for archiving your talkpage :) —usernamekiran (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi.
I saw the settings for bot. The archive parameter seems incorrect. Also, I think you bumped the 1 key while inputting the archive size. 1150K will be a lot. Like, a LOT. 150K should suffice. If you keep 1150K, every archive page will be enormous, and difficult to navigate; and slow to load. Here is an updated code based on your preferences.
{{talk header}} {{User:MiszaBot/config | algo = old(30d) | archive = User talk:Edibobb/Archive %(counter)d | counter = 1 | maxarchivesize = 150K | archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} | minthreadstoarchive = 2 | minthreadsleft = 4 }} {{archives}}
Best, —usernamekiran
(talk)
19:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
See [2], [3], [4], [5]. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 00:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Has the robot been accepted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirh123 ( talk • contribs) 17:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
hi how many articles creating with bot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirh123 ( talk • contribs) 18:07, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
hi catalogueoflife.org have very articles please make bot to adding this articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirh123 ( talk • contribs) 15:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Great work with the Qbugbot! The articles are of consistently high quality.-- MainlyTwelve ( talk) 22:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
Thanks for your tireless contribution. Regards. -- Titodutta ( talk) 21:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC) |
Hi Bob! I noticed you've recently made lists like
List of Prepops species and
List of Neolygus species. These lists can be embedded in taxoboxes by using diversity_link = List of Prepops species
and diversity = c. 200 species (see
Template:Taxobox#Diversity for details). It's probably better to be somewhat vague (e.g. "about" or "at least" 200 species) rather than precise with a large number, to provide buffering for future taxonomic changes, and/or differences between classification schemes (not all researchers of a given taxon may recognize the same taxa as valid, and/or various checklists/databases may have differing 'official' numbers). And lastly, you can correctly format the italic font in the lists by using the template {{
DISPLAYTITLE}}, e.g. {{DISPLAYTITLE:List of ''Prepops'' species}}
. Cheers,
--Animalparty! (
talk)
19:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello! How is Qbugbot generating its "Further reading" references sections? Didn't see it described in its discussion sections, but perhaps I missed it. czar 21:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Bob Webster ( talk) 21:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I have a similar question regarding the Further reading: often the lists seems awfully long, with potentially little direct utility to the focal species. Using
Cerotainiops abdominalis (while not the longest Further reading list), is there reason to suspect Encyclopedia of Entomology or
Phylogeny of Asilidae has specific info on C. abdominalis?
--Animalparty! (
talk)
19:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
hi you say bot not creat articles there are in Wikipedia and creat articles not in Wikipedia but many articles in Wikipedia that not good example Rafflesia borneensis in Wikipedia and not creat whit your bot but this article not good — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirh123 ( talk • contribs) 13:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
thanks but I don't know how to creat article in Wikipedia hard for me to creat article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirh123 ( talk • contribs) 04:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
do can make bot to adding planet articles to this address http://portal.cybertaxonomy.org/flora-malesiana/node/10161 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirh123 ( talk • contribs) 07:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
hi do another creating articles with bot in future — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirh123 ( talk • contribs) 07:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lepidopsocidae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Soa ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
The genus is neuter, so under the ICZN the name is spelled "ritense" regardless of how it was originally spelled. Please see here: [7]. Dyanega ( talk) 18:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
why bot articles not described categorys example boreus nix must have Insects described 1935 category — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirh123 ( talk • contribs) 06:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I see you have created an article Purana (cicada), but we already have Purana (genus), which is linked at Dundubiini and Cicadinae. William Avery ( talk) 21:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi. First, I think your recent editing efforts are pretty dang impressive, and very helpful (though I admit to having personal qualms about using automated taxoboxes for groups whose higher classification is in constant flux - that's not a reflection on you, I just don't trust automated taxoboxes as a matter of principle). Second, I noticed that the cassidine genus Eurypepla on one of the pages you recently edited needs to overwrite the existing Eurypepla page, which is a redirect to a moth genus. No one still uses that name for those moths, from what I can see, so having a redirect or even a dablink seems unnecessary. Dyanega ( talk) 17:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
hi bot not creat articles there are in Wikipedia and creat articles not in Wikipedia very articles not Further reading because not creat with your bot please add Further reading to this articles thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirh123 ( talk • contribs) 07:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
do make this function for bot in future — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirh123 ( talk • contribs) 06:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
A month ago you participated in an RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 147#Net neutrality. The same proposal has been posted again at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal: A US-only CentralNotice in support of Net Neutrality. (This notice has been sent to all who participated in the prior RfC, regardless of which side they supported). -- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
I've noticed that many millipede of North America articles created by Qbugbot, e.g. Underwoodia iuloides, include the essentially useless "Further reading" of Atlas of the millipedes (Diplopoda) of Britain and Ireland. As bots are automatic but not smart, a much more realistically useful reference for North American millipedes is "Hoffman, R. (1999). Checklist of the millipeds of North and Middle America. Virginia Museum of Natural History Special Publications 8, 1–553." And, for all millipedes, please drop the general references "Capinera, John L., ed. (2008). Encyclopedia of Entomology" and "Brusca, Richard C.; Moore, Wendy; Shuster, Stephen M. (2016). Invertebrates (3rd ed.)" as MOS:FURTHER states "that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject", and the only species specifically mentioned in the over 4,000 pages of Capinera 2008 is Oxidus gracilis, and the general info on the class Diplopoda in both aforementioned tertiary sources is comparable to our Wikipedia article. A more relevant, focused source on general millipede biology and diversity that should replace the two texts above is Minelli, Alessandro, ed. (2015). Treatise on Zoology - Anatomy, Taxonomy, Biology. The Myriapoda, Volume 2. Brill. ISBN 978-9004156128.
Also, it would be very helpful if North American millipedes were automatically placed into Category:Millipedes of North America (and others in appropriate Category:Millipedes by continent). Lastly, please fix the typo "Brewer, M.S.; Sierwald, P.; Bond, J.E>" in "Millipede Taxonomy after 250 Years" which currently appears in over 90 articles, and omit "Kolokotronis, Sergios-Orestis, ed" in the same reference, which is a fluke of auto-generating citations from PLOS journal DOIs (editors of journal articles are conventionally not including in standard references). Thanks, --Animalparty! ( talk) 20:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
work bot is finish Amirh123 ( talk) 07:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)finish
but many articles have very red links example List of Stenotabanus species
Just FYI, with regards to lists like List of Pselaphinae genera and List of Xystodesmidae genera, style guidelines at MOS:REDUNDANCY state "if the page is a list, do not introduce the list as "This is a list of X" or "This list of Xs..." (similarly, the article Pselaphinae would not begin "This is an article about Pselaphinae..."). A more natural, less redundant way to begin such a list article might simply read: " Pselaphinae, a subfamily of rove beetles, contains around 100 genera and 700 species." See for example List of Paradoxosomatidae genera. --Animalparty! ( talk) 06:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi Bob, can I just follow up Animalparty's point about Lists with a general question, please? I'm interested to see how you've used letter codes and grey text to indicate the data sources of the taxon names in your lists, such as at List of Hapithus species and List of Xystodesmidae genera. Whilst this approach does work (in fact, I quite like it) could you point me towards a style guideline that confirms this is the right approach to take, please? At the Teahouse I've just had to ask an editor who had taken it upon themselves to embolden author names and dates from a couple of your lists to revert their changes, and that was when I noticed the grey text and letter codes (which I thought they had also added themselves). I guess I'm curious on two points: firstly, wouldn't grey text be hard for users with visual problems to perceive, and so is this an approved colour to use? And secondly, I'm interested to understand why you didn't simply repeat the references using [1], [2], [3], etc., and what referencing guideline led you to this approach. I'm not challenging your approach so much as trying to understand how you arrived at this style, and how it fits in with other List of... pages. (PS: Great to see Qbugbot is now autopatrolled and has racked up 15K articles). Regards, Nick Moyes ( talk) 00:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Bit late on the draw to complain possibly, but I've found a few times already that some of the species list articles you have created have introduced mistakes into the lists themselves (even when they were correct before), a lot of them possibly from the online databases themselves I suspect: sometimes authority years go missing or are incorrect, sometimes mispellings appear alongside the actual spelling (sort of like duplicates), and sometimes bizarre apparently nonexistent species names pop up. I've also found a few hiccups with the author wikilinks too; sometimes they end up showing the author's full name instead of being piped, or they just turn into regular text and thus losing the link to the articles on the authors altogether. (Oh, and sometimes I find references to be broken too)
Case in point, List of Dolichopus species. I personally had worked on the species list for the Dolichopus article beforehand, and it kind of annoyed me to see what had happened after the move to the species list article. While I was heavily fixing the page to not list synonyms as valid species, even listing what I found to be synonyms or typos into their own sections, I found that "Dolichopus van der Hoeven, 1856" was introduced among them, apparently listed on GBIF's page for the genus. (I don't even know why GBIF lists that, that's just bizarre.)
Is there anything you could do to mitigate these kind of problems? I don't know if you're doing these pages by script or something, I don't know if it's asking too much of you to avoid these problems, but at the least I thought you should be aware of these things for future list pages anyway.
(I'm also kind of skeptical about relying on the online databases so much anyway, but that's possibly best for another discussion altogether elsewhere?) Monster Iestyn ( talk) 21:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I notice you put the article Triarius (genus) and associated species in Category:Luperina, which is under Category:Hadeninae. I'm afraid I don't know enough about beetles to quickly determine whether that's a simple mistake, or the result of a clash of synonyms. William Avery ( talk) 21:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Endomychidae, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Saula and Chondria ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 23:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
You mention in the subgenus Melasinae the wrong Xylophilus. This have to be Xylophilus Mannerheim, 1823. PeterR ( talk) 10:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Acmaeops discoideus (Q18143574) says it's a duplicate of Acmaeops discoideus (Q4674372), but WP doesn't seem to agree. Just going to leave this here and hope someone resolves the discrepancy (only b/c you're the bug guy!) (+stalkers). ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 02:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
When trying to create missing WD items for some Qbugbot genus insect WP articles, I noticed a few with missing parents, but existing grandparents. Would you be able to create these WP pages?
Thanks! ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 13:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Looks like these might need merging fyi ~
~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 13:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Found another pair!
~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 12:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
These look a little weird
![]() |
The Special Barnstar | |
We lost my grandfather (Dr. Barry Valentine) last night; getting to see many of the Anthribidae genera he first described present here in Wikipedia as a result of your efforts with Qbugbot has been something of a comfort. Thank you! Viqsi ( talk) 18:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC) |
As I've somehow managed to mangle pinging you twice in a row (too little sleep, I guess), I'm not going to tempt fate further and figured I'd instead let you know this way that I've responded at your Tree of Life post. AddWitty NameHere 19:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
I was doing some random page patrolling and noticed that Lithocharis cinereofusca is listed in Lithocharis (beetle), your most recent beetle article. But when I went to the article, it said that this was a moth instead of a beetle. Am I reading this correctly. Barbara ✐ ✉ 04:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
On 20 September 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sphenophorus parvulus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the bluegrass billbug feeds on maize and other grain crops as well as on Kentucky bluegrass? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sphenophorus parvulus. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Sphenophorus parvulus), 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.
Alex Shih ( talk) 00:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I made a minor edit to Haeterius blanchardi in September, without noticing that the content seems to relate to Amphicerus simplex .
As you created it, I thought perhaps you might have some content that was intended for that page. :-) William Avery ( talk) 13:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Looking through Category:Taxonbar pages without Wikidata taxon IDs's 16k pages, I see that many of them are of beetle species. I'd like to populate their Wikidata items with the most relevant (and easy to get find) database identifiers, and I figure you'd have the most experience with accessing this info online. I could go through the databases' APIs or bulk search utilities to search for each species ID; however, learning how to use each website & API is not something I want to do. But, if you already know how to do this for however-many databases, and can show me an example for each, I could put that in a loop to find all the IDs and put them on Wikidata. Alternatively, if you have such lists already, I could add them to Wikidata straight away. Whadayasay? ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 17:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Your recent edit left Tridentaforma pretty badly botched with regards to family placement. Were you using semi-automated edit tools there? If so, what source were you following? BugGuide? I'm a big fan of your work with Qbugbot, I hope we can figure out what went wrong in this case. Plantdrew ( talk) 04:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Does it matter if I change the order of the references? Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 00:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Alright, I think I'm done with User:Edibobb/sandbox/ref1... I ran the bot on all the other pages, but there's not very friendly to edit/review. How much work would it be to...
{{cite foobar
|last1= |first1=
|last2= |first2=
...
|author1=
|author2=
...
|editor-last1= |editor-first1=
|editor-last2= |editor-first2=
...
|date/year=
|origyear=
|chapter=
|chapter-url=
|title=
|url=
|journal=
|series=
|volume= |issue= |page/pages=
|publisher=
|arxiv=
|bibcode= |bibcode-access=
|isbn=
|issn=
|doi= |doi-access=
|hdl= |hdl-access=
|ol=
|pmc=
|pmid=
|ANYTHING-ELSE=
}}
, omitting everything that is missingcite foobar
(so books are together, journals are together, etc...)|editor-last=
> |last=
> |author=
> |date/year=
> |chapter=
> |title=
> |journal=
> |series=
> |volume=
> |issue=
> |page/pages=
? Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 02:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
|current-id=#####
. We could then add {{cite book | ... |current-id=01232 |main-id=00313}}
if ref #01232 is a duplicate of ref #00313. And then that'd tell the bot to simply purge/ignore ref #01232 and replace it with ref #00313 instead. (There may be other ways to do this.)
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
15:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Continuing cleanup. Feel free to look up the Federal Register references and improve them. They can be found in User:Edibobb/sandbox/ref5, and you should be able to match them with things like [9] or [10]. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 19:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
???
in places that should likely have something. Feel free to help there as well. Or get people from WP Entomology to help (or whatever the insect project is called).
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
19:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
|journal=???
could likely be resolved by looking at what the title of the corresponding ISSN is. It'll need some cleanup, but it'll beat nothing. I'll try to get this implemented in citation bot too.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
20:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Concerning [11], are you sure this is correct? Every other citations to that includes the family number. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 16:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Also I did a huge stretch of cleanup. It's not fully done, but I'm guessing it's like 60% done. A re-sorting would do a lot of good. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 01:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
There's something weird going on with (on /ref5)
The fascicle numbers don't seem to match the year published. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 04:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Something weird going on with on /20
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 14:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Ah I see. Is /Ref25 useless now? Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 01:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
In /ref2, many edits like this could be made: [12] based on https://mds.marshall.edu/bio_sciences_faculty/88/. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 22:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Could you also confirm the details of
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)in /ref21? Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 01:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
This should be reviewed. I can't tell if it was a duplicate because of the title, or if it had the wrong title, but correct doi/jstor identifiers. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 01:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
|journal=
> |series=
> |date/year=
> |volume=
> |issue=
> |page/pages=
> |last=
> |author=
> |editor-last=
> |chapter=
> |title=
Also I've added this: [13]. Not sure if it's usefull, but if you're citing the full series, it's there. If not, feel free to remove those you don't make use of. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 13:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
See also [14] and the comment about the new version of these checklists. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 16:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
What are all the |id=
?
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
18:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
See also [16]. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 17:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
@ Headbomb: I believe the references are in good order and am ready to go ahead with the bot run.
A few things
|chapter-url=
that points to the specific subfile in
https://mds.marshall.edu/bio_sciences_faculty/88/.|volume=<!--Citation bot -->
I will add more as I find stuff. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 23:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Could you do a journal sort with journal > volume > issue > pages > year/date
? This should help for a final review for inconsistencies.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
17:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 22:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 03:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Headbomb: I would like to go ahead with the bot run, if possible. Bob Webster ( talk) 17:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Doing a final review. In /ref23+, a lot of the Zootaxa citation are missing their 'real' DOIs, instead pointing to Zenodo DOIs. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 22:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
In /ref12, is "Evolutionary biology of Siphonostomatoida (Copepoda) parasitic on vertebrates" the thesis of some journal article? Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 01:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
BTW, in
[19] (and elsewhere), you removed a few |volume=<!-- -->
. Those should have been kept.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
13:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Hi and welcome! I notice that many or all of your stub articles are in the format: x is a species of scientific name ("common name"), in the larger group scientific name ("common name"). To me this seems a bit redundant and clunky to read. It's more common on Wikipedia for articles to simply read " Notoxus montanus is a species of ant-like flower beetles native to North America", or " Notoxus montanus is a species of beetle in the family Anthicidae." In most cases, an article on a species needn't mention the suborder, nor superfamily, etc. in introductory text (see Good Articles like Emerald ash borer or Polistes exclamans for exemplars). It's somewhat a matter of style and preference, but the quotes and common names (especially cumbersome ones like "water, rove, scarab, long-horned, leaf and snout beetles") can seem a bit tacked on and pandering. Also, please note that BugGuide is a user-generated source, and should generally not be used as a reference as it is edited by the community and can change in an instant, rendering it unreliable. A better alternative could be to add {{ taxonbar}} to taxon articles, which contains external links to several common taxonomic resources (including EOL, ITIS, GBIF, Bug Guide and others), and draw more heavily form the journals and book references. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a database or directory, and so the print/journal references you include (and any prose) are far more valuable than largely redundant links to EOL and ITIS (which in turn often draw from or link to each other, and Wikipedia, creating a potential vortex of circular unreliability!).
Lastly, a couple of suggestions for finishing touches on each stub or article you create: 1) create the corresponding Talk page, adding, for instance, {{WikiProject Insects|class=stub|importance=low}}
, and 2) syncing the article with
interlanguage links if they exist: Cebuanao and Swedish Wikipedia have a large amount of taxon articles bot-scraped from online databases. Interlanguage linking also allows the taxonbar to be autofilled. These two steps help facilitate user and machine access to articles, and reduce the work load for other editors. Cheers!
--Animalparty! (
talk)
09:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Thank you for all the work you have put into creating beetle-related article. FITINDIA 23:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC) |
Thanks for creating Dicerca hesperoborealis, Edibobb!
Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Just FYI, taxoboxes should generally only include major ranks or those discussed in the article, per Template:Taxobox#Classification. Excessive extraneous info should be minimized. You might also check out the Template:Automatic taxobox, which automatically updates every time, say, a taxon is reassigned to a new subterclass, parvorder, or infrafamily.
To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
--Animalparty! ( talk) 04:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for creating Leptoypha, Edibobb!
Wikipedia editor Enwebb just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Thanks for fleshing out insect taxonomy!
To reply, leave a comment on Enwebb's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Enwebb ( talk) 03:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for creating List of Neohydatothrips species, Edibobb!
Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
To be honest, we probably don't need separate lists of species for genera unless they exceed like a hundred. Centralized info is better than a billion scattered stubs.
To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
--Animalparty! ( talk) 04:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for creating Mipseltyrus nicolayi, Edibobb!
Wikipedia editor Usernamekiran just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
If possible, could you please add one line in main body, in a new section? That would automatically create a "lead" section, and a body. Thanks :)
To reply, leave a comment on Usernamekiran's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
—usernamekiran (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello! Thanks for you pages on various insect taxa. It would be great if you could add the authority of the taxon in the taxobox. You can do this by making a parameter with the rank of the taxon, and then "_authority" after it. For example, I would add "|species_authority=Linnaeus, 1758" to the end of the taxobox if a taxon was described by Linnaeus in 1758. Hope that helps! RileyBugz 私に叫ぼう 私の編集 20:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Honestly speaking, I am not much good with that "authority control" myself lol. Please feel free to ask
RileyBugz about it if you want to.
Your creations are very good. Even though it is not a problem, you should be mindful about
WP:ORPH, and specially about
WP:GARDEN. The field in which you are creating articles, is very prone to "garden" issue, and it is also difficult to detect, so the best thing is to avoid it while creation, or remember to avoid it later. If there are any questions/doubts (about anything) please feel free to ask. :) —usernamekiran
(talk)
20:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Edibobb, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! TonyBallioni ( talk) 16:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Peter coxhead, Plantdrew, and William Avery: This is in relation to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Adding Species Stub Articles and discussion above.
I thought of something else. There's an effort to gradually replace {{ Taxobox}} with {{ Speciesbox}} and some related templates. I don't know much about it, but I've seen work by many others to make the transition. It might be better to start your new articles with Speciesbox, etc. I'm pinging a couple of people who I've seen working on this to see if they have any suggestions. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 06:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, Edibobb! Thank you for
your contributions. I am
SchreiberBike and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on
my talk page. You can also check out
Wikipedia:Questions or type {{
help me}}
at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! SchreiberBike | ⌨ 04:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks again for the information! I'll put a message on the Tree of Life page. I wasn't even familiar with it. I did put a message on the Arthropod project page and there was favorable response, but only from a couple of people.
I did wonder about whether putting up a bunch of stubs will help. I think in the long run it should. It will resolve a bunch of dead internal links, and more importantly, with references it should make it easier for people to expand the articles as opposed to creating a new article.
Once again, thanks for your assistance!
Bob Webster ( talk) 01:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing Carteris oculatalis, Edibobb.
Unfortunately Jimfbleak has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:
unused refs
To reply, leave a comment on Jimfbleak's talk page.
Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Euphranta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fruit fly ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, at Template:Taxonomy/Atysites, setting the rank to "zoosectio" (the correct value for a zoological section) causes an anomaly in the rank order. A zoological section is supposed to be a rank above the family level. I note that BugGuide has "No Taxon (Section Atysites)", i.e. it's not actually treating "Section Atysites" as a rank. I think the best we can do is to declare Atysites to be "unranked". ITIS and the other taxonomy websites given as sources don't contain Atysites, so the other option is to omit it altogether from the taxonomic hierarchy. Peter coxhead ( talk) 22:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Ranks must be Latin in taxonomy templates (as e.g. Template:Taxonomy/Entomobryomorpha); there's a list at WP:Autotaxobox/ranks. The system may seem to work with English rank names but some features don't. Peter coxhead ( talk) 08:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
I see on
Acanthepeira cherokee you used {{Taxonbar|from=Q2190081}}
, which populated
Category:Taxonbar templates desynced from Wikidata, but I think you meant {{Taxonbar|from1=Q48975997|from2=Q2190081}}
? The |from=
/|from1=
parameter is meant to be the main Wikidata QID pointing to the Wikipedia page, and |from2=
, |from3=
, etc., are used for synonymous/alternate Wikidata items that are related to the page. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf)
13:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I see that {{ Taxonomy/Antonina}} links to the dab page Antonina. I tried to fix it but that page only lists a plant (no mealybugs). I also don't want to make edits that might mess up, or be undone by, some automated process. {{ Taxonomy/Pulvinaria}} has a similar problem, though there Pulvinaria (insect) is the obvious choice. Please can you help? Thanks, Certes ( talk) 15:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I've noticed some incomplete taxonomy templates in some of your recent articles. E.g. the families Template:Taxonomy/Cleidogonidae and Template:Taxonomy/Tingupidae have the subpyhylum Myriapoda as parent, omitting the lower rank of Order Chordeumatida. Please double check your taxonomy so that appropriate major ranks are included. Thanks. --Animalparty! ( talk) 06:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Your recent bot approval request has been approved for a trial. Please see the BRFA for more details. Thanks! ~ Rob13 Talk 06:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Is that article about or Eremochrysa or Hister? Not clear to me :-)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rivellia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Signal fly ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Please, where in the world did you get this information: " Proctotrupidae is a family of ants, bees, wasps and sawflies in the order Hymenoptera. There are about 11 genera and 12 described species in Proctotrupidae."? Is this vandalism or an accident? -- Polinizador ( talk) 02:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
FYI I was running my ref cleanup script over pages you made recently (oldest was ~early Feb) and found the most common fixes to be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Just thought you'd like/want to know ffr, in case they haven't already been taken care of. Nice work! ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 00:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Congrats on the extended trial!
Would you mind if Category:Articles begun by Qbugbot was renamed to Category:Articles created by Qbugbot? ' Articles created' is the standard naming convention rather than ' Articles begun'. I didn't want to do this myself, since it requires a corresponding Qbugbot code change. Thanks! ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 18:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I have processed the speedy renaming of Category:Articles begun by Qbugbot to Category:Articles created by Qbugbot. Since it is a tracking category rather than a content category, I have also tagged it as a {{ hidden category}} and removed it from Category:Arthropods. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I was very pleased to see you've received approval for your arthropod bot. Having expressed my support at WP:VPR, it now seems appropriate to follow up by offering you any assistance I can in quality checking as you roll this out. I'm more of a botanist, and not an entomologist (and know nothing of North American biodiversity), but please ping me if you have any monitoring tasks you'd like help with.
And as an aside, may I observe that I don't think the intros to List of Tingini genera, List of Leiodes species etc quite sufficiently explain to a non expert to what the lists relate? Maybe something like: This is a list of 121 species in the genus Leiodes,[1][2][3] - a group of beetles within the class Insecta (or phylum Arthropoda). would give greater clarity? Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes ( talk) 00:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Enwebb. Edibobb, thanks for creating Tingini!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please do not copy and paste directly from a source, as that is plagiarism!
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Enwebb ( talk) 01:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
ITIS produced data and information are in the public domain. While the content of many ITIS web pages is in the public domain, some ITIS pages contain material that is copyrighted by others and used by ITIS with permission. You may need to obtain permission from the copyright owner for other uses. Furthermore, some ITIS data, products, and information linked, or referred to, from this site may be protected under U.S. and foreign copyright laws. You may need to obtain permission from the copyright owner to acquire, use, reproduce, or distribute these materials. It is the sole responsibility of you, the user of this site, to carefully examine the content of ITIS and all linked pages for copyright restrictions and to secure all necessary permissions.
<!-- This section is copy-pasted from public domain -->
so that editors/new-page patrollers don't think it's plagiarism. I apologize for my error!
Enwebb (
talk)
04:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Bob, and
Enwebb; I think the easiest way to add PD attribution is to add {{
PD-notice}} right before closing ref tag. Like in the following example:<ref name="nga.mil">{{cite web|url=https://www.nga.mil/About/History/NGAinHistory/Pages/MajGenWilliamKJames.aspx|title=Maj. Gen. William K. James|website=www.nga.mil}}{{PD-notice}}</ref>
Also, it is difficult to fill in the bare refs manually. I usually add bare refs first, then fill it up with refill, and then add the pd notice. You can see a live example at William K. James.
Also also, you should set-up miszabot for archiving your talkpage :) —usernamekiran (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi.
I saw the settings for bot. The archive parameter seems incorrect. Also, I think you bumped the 1 key while inputting the archive size. 1150K will be a lot. Like, a LOT. 150K should suffice. If you keep 1150K, every archive page will be enormous, and difficult to navigate; and slow to load. Here is an updated code based on your preferences.
{{talk header}} {{User:MiszaBot/config | algo = old(30d) | archive = User talk:Edibobb/Archive %(counter)d | counter = 1 | maxarchivesize = 150K | archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} | minthreadstoarchive = 2 | minthreadsleft = 4 }} {{archives}}
Best, —usernamekiran
(talk)
19:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
See [2], [3], [4], [5]. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 00:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Has the robot been accepted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirh123 ( talk • contribs) 17:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
hi how many articles creating with bot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirh123 ( talk • contribs) 18:07, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
hi catalogueoflife.org have very articles please make bot to adding this articles — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirh123 ( talk • contribs) 15:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Great work with the Qbugbot! The articles are of consistently high quality.-- MainlyTwelve ( talk) 22:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
Thanks for your tireless contribution. Regards. -- Titodutta ( talk) 21:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC) |
Hi Bob! I noticed you've recently made lists like
List of Prepops species and
List of Neolygus species. These lists can be embedded in taxoboxes by using diversity_link = List of Prepops species
and diversity = c. 200 species (see
Template:Taxobox#Diversity for details). It's probably better to be somewhat vague (e.g. "about" or "at least" 200 species) rather than precise with a large number, to provide buffering for future taxonomic changes, and/or differences between classification schemes (not all researchers of a given taxon may recognize the same taxa as valid, and/or various checklists/databases may have differing 'official' numbers). And lastly, you can correctly format the italic font in the lists by using the template {{
DISPLAYTITLE}}, e.g. {{DISPLAYTITLE:List of ''Prepops'' species}}
. Cheers,
--Animalparty! (
talk)
19:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello! How is Qbugbot generating its "Further reading" references sections? Didn't see it described in its discussion sections, but perhaps I missed it. czar 21:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Bob Webster ( talk) 21:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I have a similar question regarding the Further reading: often the lists seems awfully long, with potentially little direct utility to the focal species. Using
Cerotainiops abdominalis (while not the longest Further reading list), is there reason to suspect Encyclopedia of Entomology or
Phylogeny of Asilidae has specific info on C. abdominalis?
--Animalparty! (
talk)
19:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
hi you say bot not creat articles there are in Wikipedia and creat articles not in Wikipedia but many articles in Wikipedia that not good example Rafflesia borneensis in Wikipedia and not creat whit your bot but this article not good — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirh123 ( talk • contribs) 13:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
thanks but I don't know how to creat article in Wikipedia hard for me to creat article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirh123 ( talk • contribs) 04:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
do can make bot to adding planet articles to this address http://portal.cybertaxonomy.org/flora-malesiana/node/10161 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirh123 ( talk • contribs) 07:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
hi do another creating articles with bot in future — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirh123 ( talk • contribs) 07:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lepidopsocidae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Soa ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
The genus is neuter, so under the ICZN the name is spelled "ritense" regardless of how it was originally spelled. Please see here: [7]. Dyanega ( talk) 18:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
why bot articles not described categorys example boreus nix must have Insects described 1935 category — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirh123 ( talk • contribs) 06:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I see you have created an article Purana (cicada), but we already have Purana (genus), which is linked at Dundubiini and Cicadinae. William Avery ( talk) 21:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi. First, I think your recent editing efforts are pretty dang impressive, and very helpful (though I admit to having personal qualms about using automated taxoboxes for groups whose higher classification is in constant flux - that's not a reflection on you, I just don't trust automated taxoboxes as a matter of principle). Second, I noticed that the cassidine genus Eurypepla on one of the pages you recently edited needs to overwrite the existing Eurypepla page, which is a redirect to a moth genus. No one still uses that name for those moths, from what I can see, so having a redirect or even a dablink seems unnecessary. Dyanega ( talk) 17:27, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
hi bot not creat articles there are in Wikipedia and creat articles not in Wikipedia very articles not Further reading because not creat with your bot please add Further reading to this articles thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirh123 ( talk • contribs) 07:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
do make this function for bot in future — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amirh123 ( talk • contribs) 06:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
A month ago you participated in an RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 147#Net neutrality. The same proposal has been posted again at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal: A US-only CentralNotice in support of Net Neutrality. (This notice has been sent to all who participated in the prior RfC, regardless of which side they supported). -- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:50, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
I've noticed that many millipede of North America articles created by Qbugbot, e.g. Underwoodia iuloides, include the essentially useless "Further reading" of Atlas of the millipedes (Diplopoda) of Britain and Ireland. As bots are automatic but not smart, a much more realistically useful reference for North American millipedes is "Hoffman, R. (1999). Checklist of the millipeds of North and Middle America. Virginia Museum of Natural History Special Publications 8, 1–553." And, for all millipedes, please drop the general references "Capinera, John L., ed. (2008). Encyclopedia of Entomology" and "Brusca, Richard C.; Moore, Wendy; Shuster, Stephen M. (2016). Invertebrates (3rd ed.)" as MOS:FURTHER states "that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject", and the only species specifically mentioned in the over 4,000 pages of Capinera 2008 is Oxidus gracilis, and the general info on the class Diplopoda in both aforementioned tertiary sources is comparable to our Wikipedia article. A more relevant, focused source on general millipede biology and diversity that should replace the two texts above is Minelli, Alessandro, ed. (2015). Treatise on Zoology - Anatomy, Taxonomy, Biology. The Myriapoda, Volume 2. Brill. ISBN 978-9004156128.
Also, it would be very helpful if North American millipedes were automatically placed into Category:Millipedes of North America (and others in appropriate Category:Millipedes by continent). Lastly, please fix the typo "Brewer, M.S.; Sierwald, P.; Bond, J.E>" in "Millipede Taxonomy after 250 Years" which currently appears in over 90 articles, and omit "Kolokotronis, Sergios-Orestis, ed" in the same reference, which is a fluke of auto-generating citations from PLOS journal DOIs (editors of journal articles are conventionally not including in standard references). Thanks, --Animalparty! ( talk) 20:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
work bot is finish Amirh123 ( talk) 07:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)finish
but many articles have very red links example List of Stenotabanus species
Just FYI, with regards to lists like List of Pselaphinae genera and List of Xystodesmidae genera, style guidelines at MOS:REDUNDANCY state "if the page is a list, do not introduce the list as "This is a list of X" or "This list of Xs..." (similarly, the article Pselaphinae would not begin "This is an article about Pselaphinae..."). A more natural, less redundant way to begin such a list article might simply read: " Pselaphinae, a subfamily of rove beetles, contains around 100 genera and 700 species." See for example List of Paradoxosomatidae genera. --Animalparty! ( talk) 06:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi Bob, can I just follow up Animalparty's point about Lists with a general question, please? I'm interested to see how you've used letter codes and grey text to indicate the data sources of the taxon names in your lists, such as at List of Hapithus species and List of Xystodesmidae genera. Whilst this approach does work (in fact, I quite like it) could you point me towards a style guideline that confirms this is the right approach to take, please? At the Teahouse I've just had to ask an editor who had taken it upon themselves to embolden author names and dates from a couple of your lists to revert their changes, and that was when I noticed the grey text and letter codes (which I thought they had also added themselves). I guess I'm curious on two points: firstly, wouldn't grey text be hard for users with visual problems to perceive, and so is this an approved colour to use? And secondly, I'm interested to understand why you didn't simply repeat the references using [1], [2], [3], etc., and what referencing guideline led you to this approach. I'm not challenging your approach so much as trying to understand how you arrived at this style, and how it fits in with other List of... pages. (PS: Great to see Qbugbot is now autopatrolled and has racked up 15K articles). Regards, Nick Moyes ( talk) 00:30, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Bit late on the draw to complain possibly, but I've found a few times already that some of the species list articles you have created have introduced mistakes into the lists themselves (even when they were correct before), a lot of them possibly from the online databases themselves I suspect: sometimes authority years go missing or are incorrect, sometimes mispellings appear alongside the actual spelling (sort of like duplicates), and sometimes bizarre apparently nonexistent species names pop up. I've also found a few hiccups with the author wikilinks too; sometimes they end up showing the author's full name instead of being piped, or they just turn into regular text and thus losing the link to the articles on the authors altogether. (Oh, and sometimes I find references to be broken too)
Case in point, List of Dolichopus species. I personally had worked on the species list for the Dolichopus article beforehand, and it kind of annoyed me to see what had happened after the move to the species list article. While I was heavily fixing the page to not list synonyms as valid species, even listing what I found to be synonyms or typos into their own sections, I found that "Dolichopus van der Hoeven, 1856" was introduced among them, apparently listed on GBIF's page for the genus. (I don't even know why GBIF lists that, that's just bizarre.)
Is there anything you could do to mitigate these kind of problems? I don't know if you're doing these pages by script or something, I don't know if it's asking too much of you to avoid these problems, but at the least I thought you should be aware of these things for future list pages anyway.
(I'm also kind of skeptical about relying on the online databases so much anyway, but that's possibly best for another discussion altogether elsewhere?) Monster Iestyn ( talk) 21:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I notice you put the article Triarius (genus) and associated species in Category:Luperina, which is under Category:Hadeninae. I'm afraid I don't know enough about beetles to quickly determine whether that's a simple mistake, or the result of a clash of synonyms. William Avery ( talk) 21:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Endomychidae, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Saula and Chondria ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 23:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
You mention in the subgenus Melasinae the wrong Xylophilus. This have to be Xylophilus Mannerheim, 1823. PeterR ( talk) 10:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Acmaeops discoideus (Q18143574) says it's a duplicate of Acmaeops discoideus (Q4674372), but WP doesn't seem to agree. Just going to leave this here and hope someone resolves the discrepancy (only b/c you're the bug guy!) (+stalkers). ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 02:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
When trying to create missing WD items for some Qbugbot genus insect WP articles, I noticed a few with missing parents, but existing grandparents. Would you be able to create these WP pages?
Thanks! ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 13:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Looks like these might need merging fyi ~
~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 13:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Found another pair!
~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 12:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
These look a little weird
![]() |
The Special Barnstar | |
We lost my grandfather (Dr. Barry Valentine) last night; getting to see many of the Anthribidae genera he first described present here in Wikipedia as a result of your efforts with Qbugbot has been something of a comfort. Thank you! Viqsi ( talk) 18:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC) |
As I've somehow managed to mangle pinging you twice in a row (too little sleep, I guess), I'm not going to tempt fate further and figured I'd instead let you know this way that I've responded at your Tree of Life post. AddWitty NameHere 19:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
I was doing some random page patrolling and noticed that Lithocharis cinereofusca is listed in Lithocharis (beetle), your most recent beetle article. But when I went to the article, it said that this was a moth instead of a beetle. Am I reading this correctly. Barbara ✐ ✉ 04:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
On 20 September 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sphenophorus parvulus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the bluegrass billbug feeds on maize and other grain crops as well as on Kentucky bluegrass? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sphenophorus parvulus. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Sphenophorus parvulus), 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.
Alex Shih ( talk) 00:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I made a minor edit to Haeterius blanchardi in September, without noticing that the content seems to relate to Amphicerus simplex .
As you created it, I thought perhaps you might have some content that was intended for that page. :-) William Avery ( talk) 13:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Looking through Category:Taxonbar pages without Wikidata taxon IDs's 16k pages, I see that many of them are of beetle species. I'd like to populate their Wikidata items with the most relevant (and easy to get find) database identifiers, and I figure you'd have the most experience with accessing this info online. I could go through the databases' APIs or bulk search utilities to search for each species ID; however, learning how to use each website & API is not something I want to do. But, if you already know how to do this for however-many databases, and can show me an example for each, I could put that in a loop to find all the IDs and put them on Wikidata. Alternatively, if you have such lists already, I could add them to Wikidata straight away. Whadayasay? ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 17:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Your recent edit left Tridentaforma pretty badly botched with regards to family placement. Were you using semi-automated edit tools there? If so, what source were you following? BugGuide? I'm a big fan of your work with Qbugbot, I hope we can figure out what went wrong in this case. Plantdrew ( talk) 04:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Does it matter if I change the order of the references? Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 00:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Alright, I think I'm done with User:Edibobb/sandbox/ref1... I ran the bot on all the other pages, but there's not very friendly to edit/review. How much work would it be to...
{{cite foobar
|last1= |first1=
|last2= |first2=
...
|author1=
|author2=
...
|editor-last1= |editor-first1=
|editor-last2= |editor-first2=
...
|date/year=
|origyear=
|chapter=
|chapter-url=
|title=
|url=
|journal=
|series=
|volume= |issue= |page/pages=
|publisher=
|arxiv=
|bibcode= |bibcode-access=
|isbn=
|issn=
|doi= |doi-access=
|hdl= |hdl-access=
|ol=
|pmc=
|pmid=
|ANYTHING-ELSE=
}}
, omitting everything that is missingcite foobar
(so books are together, journals are together, etc...)|editor-last=
> |last=
> |author=
> |date/year=
> |chapter=
> |title=
> |journal=
> |series=
> |volume=
> |issue=
> |page/pages=
? Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 02:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
|current-id=#####
. We could then add {{cite book | ... |current-id=01232 |main-id=00313}}
if ref #01232 is a duplicate of ref #00313. And then that'd tell the bot to simply purge/ignore ref #01232 and replace it with ref #00313 instead. (There may be other ways to do this.)
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
15:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Continuing cleanup. Feel free to look up the Federal Register references and improve them. They can be found in User:Edibobb/sandbox/ref5, and you should be able to match them with things like [9] or [10]. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 19:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
???
in places that should likely have something. Feel free to help there as well. Or get people from WP Entomology to help (or whatever the insect project is called).
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
19:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
|journal=???
could likely be resolved by looking at what the title of the corresponding ISSN is. It'll need some cleanup, but it'll beat nothing. I'll try to get this implemented in citation bot too.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
20:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Concerning [11], are you sure this is correct? Every other citations to that includes the family number. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 16:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Also I did a huge stretch of cleanup. It's not fully done, but I'm guessing it's like 60% done. A re-sorting would do a lot of good. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 01:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
There's something weird going on with (on /ref5)
The fascicle numbers don't seem to match the year published. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 04:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Something weird going on with on /20
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 14:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Ah I see. Is /Ref25 useless now? Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 01:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
In /ref2, many edits like this could be made: [12] based on https://mds.marshall.edu/bio_sciences_faculty/88/. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 22:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Could you also confirm the details of
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link)in /ref21? Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 01:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
This should be reviewed. I can't tell if it was a duplicate because of the title, or if it had the wrong title, but correct doi/jstor identifiers. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 01:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
|journal=
> |series=
> |date/year=
> |volume=
> |issue=
> |page/pages=
> |last=
> |author=
> |editor-last=
> |chapter=
> |title=
Also I've added this: [13]. Not sure if it's usefull, but if you're citing the full series, it's there. If not, feel free to remove those you don't make use of. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 13:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
See also [14] and the comment about the new version of these checklists. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 16:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
What are all the |id=
?
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
18:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
See also [16]. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 17:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
@ Headbomb: I believe the references are in good order and am ready to go ahead with the bot run.
A few things
|chapter-url=
that points to the specific subfile in
https://mds.marshall.edu/bio_sciences_faculty/88/.|volume=<!--Citation bot -->
I will add more as I find stuff. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 23:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Could you do a journal sort with journal > volume > issue > pages > year/date
? This should help for a final review for inconsistencies.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
17:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 22:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 03:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Headbomb: I would like to go ahead with the bot run, if possible. Bob Webster ( talk) 17:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Doing a final review. In /ref23+, a lot of the Zootaxa citation are missing their 'real' DOIs, instead pointing to Zenodo DOIs. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 22:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
In /ref12, is "Evolutionary biology of Siphonostomatoida (Copepoda) parasitic on vertebrates" the thesis of some journal article? Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 01:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
BTW, in
[19] (and elsewhere), you removed a few |volume=<!-- -->
. Those should have been kept.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
13:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)