![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hello, Hyperik/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
from Tapir Terrific 02:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Talk to me!
Hi, this was misnamed, and I can't move it to Category space. I'm going to delete it, please recreate it without the "Editing" on the front. :) User:Zoe| (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering why you reverted [1] my edit of Template:User NHS. I have userfied the box at User:WillMak050389/User NHS, and thanks to User:MetsBot, all user pages and links have been converted. Please reply why you have done this, or am going to revert this back. Thanks. -- Will Mak 050389
Hi! I wanted to know why you removed my reference to Balthamos eating and its connection to Paradise Lost.
Cheers! Thanks for your contributions to the AP Calculus article! -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 07:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi there,
Sorry for the late response, I have been struggling trying to comprehend the messaging system on Wikipedia. In response to your question about the carniverous tadpoles bit I added to the frog section: I know this to be true as I have a pond in my back garden and every year when the tadpoles arrive I have observed this. The first to develop into froglets seem to be targeted by the larger of the tadpoles and devoured. I can't say why this is, maybe because the froglets look different and no longer are recognised by their peers. But never the less it happens. The frogs leaving a baby sitter (which I also stated on the frogs page) I have also observed and this has been confirm'd.
Thanks for asking!
Max Warren
P.S. I like your user profile page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ghidorah221 ( talk • contribs) 07:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
A tag has been placed on Vince Dibattista requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you.
Jay Pegg (
talk)
23:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Duluth Area Speedskating Club, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Zodon ( talk) 06:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you have taken some good pictures. Would you mind uploading them to Wikimedia? Your clap skate hinge photo is very illustrating. Thanks, -- Teodor605 ( talk) 15:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Evanston S.P.A.C.E. requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact
one of these administrators to request that the administrator
userfy the page or email a copy to you. —
C45207 |
Talk
10:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
The article Scott Anderson (pilot) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Michig (
talk)
13:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Scott Anderson (pilot) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Anderson (pilot) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Michig ( talk) 19:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey Chickenflicker; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 21:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Your upload of File:Clapskate2.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.
This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot ( opt-out) 14:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
The article The Talking Farm has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
No indication that this very local project is of encyclopedic value or that it is recognized as having a broader importance than that which is picked up just by the local paper.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Drmies (
talk)
18:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for creating Bupleuroides (Section), Chickenflicker!
Wikipedia editor Nick Moyes just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
I was half minded to change this redirect to Hypericum bupleuroides as it's a mononotypic section. But I guess it puts that section into its broader context, from where just one more click would take you to the species, it required.
To reply, leave a comment on Nick Moyes's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Nick Moyes ( talk) 09:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for creating Hypericum sect. Myriandra, Chickenflicker!
Wikipedia editor Nick Moyes just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
So why a different naming style from the previous Hypericum section?
To reply, leave a comment on Nick Moyes's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Nick Moyes ( talk) 09:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for creating Reference ecosystem, Hyperik!
Wikipedia editor Nick Moyes just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Please try and add more than one reference in future - it avoids accusations of a term being a neologism. I've added a couple more for you.
To reply, leave a comment on Nick Moyes's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Nick Moyes ( talk) 23:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for creating Ampelamus laevis, Hyperik!
Wikipedia editor Bennv3771 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Would be helpful if you tag it as a stub. See Template:Plant-stub on how to do this.
To reply, leave a comment on Bennv3771's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Bennv3771 ( talk) 02:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for creating Thalictrum dasycarpum, Hyperik!
Wikipedia editor SkyGazer 512 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Thank you for creating all these good-quality articles.
To reply, leave a comment on SkyGazer 512's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 22:58, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Hyperik, 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) 17:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Just to express my appreciation for the work you've been doing completing taxonbars for monotypic genera. Peter coxhead ( talk) 20:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I was disappointed to see you reverting as if vandalism rather than undoing politely, indeed rather than discussing, ... indeed rather than leaving the matter alone, as it's hard to see what justification there can be for your addition of those links in the first place. There is no value in adding red authorlinks; if you think those authors deserve articles, by all means write them, and then do a search for places to link. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 14:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, the {{
Taxonbar}} template does pick up multiple Wikidata items when the taxon synonym property is properly specified in Wikidata. However, we've generally taken the view that it's better not to rely on properties remaining in place at Wikidata, which has many fewer editors to take care of vandalism than there are here. So when there are Wikidata items for synonyms, as at
Tetraena giessii, it's best to add all of them to the taxonbar, using |from1=
, |from2=
, etc.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
11:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Hey, just wanted to give you a quick thanks for your edits on Hypericum densiflorum and other species in the genus. Those little edits with format and taxonbars and the like really add up and make a difference. If you're looking for other species similar to those to edit and improve, check out WikiProject Hypericaceae, a project recently started to try to elevate the St. John's Wort family (which Hypericum is a part of) to a higher overall article quality. Feel free to add yourself to the participants list as well if you feel so inclined.
If you have any issues or need any help- or want to collaborate on a project- please don't hesitate to shoot me a response here or visit my talk page at any time. Editing is always more enjoyable when you aren't going at it solo!
Best Regards, Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 00:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
If you could add a source for the first two paragraphs in the description of Parthenocissus inserta (is it from the Jepson Manual?), then the "additional sources" notice could be removed, which would look better. Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I saw you're trying to get a duplicate taxonomy template for Peoria deleted. When I create a bad taxonomy template (usually from a typo), I go with author requests deletion ( WP:G7). That gets it deleted in a matter of hours rather than days.
Also, it's not necessary to add a disambiguator to the taxonomy template name unless there is another taxon with the same name. I suppose an argument could be made for keeping the template name consistent with the article title, but I've also heard the argument made that when two taxa share a name, we can just pick one of them to be the "primary topic" of an undisambiguated taxonomy template (the reasoning being that the title of the taxonomy template is entirely invisible to readers and it can save editors from having to type a disambiguator). Personally, I only create disambiguated taxonomy templates when there is another taxon with the same name on Wikipedia. Plantdrew ( talk) 20:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
ProgrammingGeek talktome 03:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)If there is value present in |name=
for a Taxobox or Automatic taxobox, it stops the title from being displayed in italics, and {{
Italic title}} needs to be used (you'd removed the italic title template in
Tropidia, but there was a value for the name parameter). The italicization sensing for Speciesbox is more robust, and still works when there is a name value.
Plantdrew (
talk)
19:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
|type_genus=
).@ Plantdrew and Hyperik: (re italic titles) around January 2017 I made some fixes to {{ Speciesbox}} which mean that it does handle automatically including {{ Italic title}} better, as Plantdrew notes above, although not perfectly. Something similar needs to be done for other taxoboxes. The problem is the sheer complexity and number of cases that have to be handled, when articles can be at English names, species names, genus names, disambiguated genus names, ranks not requiring italics, ranks requiring mixed italicization (like sections or subgenera), etc. and taxoboxes have names (titles) which may or may not be the same as the article title or the target taxon. Much of the taxobox system, manual and automated, ideally needs re-implementing cleanly, as its incremental growth since 2004 has resulted in layers of fixes obscuring the underlying logic. But this would be a huge task! Peter coxhead ( talk) 12:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey Hyperik, just saw your new article Hypericum assamicum and wanted to give you a heads up that you can submit it as an article at Wikipedia:Asian Month as a part of that competition because it is flora of Asia. You can also add the template to the talk page to mark it as a contribution to the 2018 Wikipedia Asian Month. Thanks for your contributions, Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 17:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Apologies, I neglected to leave an edit comment when upmerging Category:Stillingia. Categories should be of a "reasonable size". There's no rigid rule, but it's often best to think about it the other way round: if all the articles were put into the parent category, would this need to be diffused? Peter coxhead ( talk) 21:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Hyperik, for all the taxoboxes. --Gpkp ( u • t • c) 15:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, you replaced a manual taxobox with an automatic one here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Pyrophorini&oldid=871229270 The automatic taxobox is wrong though. Agrypninae is the current subfamily, not Pyrophorinae. How do I update this so the automatic taxobox is correct? - Photocyte ( talk) 19:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello - thank you for your edits, many of which I agree with. However, I would take issue on a couple of points where you have:
Brgds Roy Bateman ( talk) 12:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article. It is usually very short...Although Stub-class articles are the lowest class of the normal classes, they are adequate enough to be an accepted article, though they do have risks of being dropped from being an article altogether....Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. Readers probably see insufficiently developed features of the topic...The stub example for plants is in line with how I have been rating Orthoptera articles. For me, no physical description usually means it won't yet be a "start".
Thanks for adding the image of this species. However I think it is by no means a typical image of this species. Sorry. Try : http://www.algaebase.org/. I do not know how to add an image and whether there is any copyright requirements! User:Osborne 17:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I would not be so bold as to remove a photograph you had lodged! The one you suggest is better - I'll take a look around and see what I can find. Thanks. Osborne 19:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
That's much better - I think anyhow! I'll have to learn how to download an image.Osborne 21:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I saw the change of authorship you made on the Siren page, but I think you've been misled by an erroneous online resource; the AMNH page [2] has got the wrong author name, and it's fairly obvious as to the source of the confusion. There is a link near the top to a 1926 ruling (Opinion 92) with the claim that Osterdam was the author. If you read the ruling itself [3], you will note that it says no such thing; in Opinion 92, Linnaeus was explicitly given authorship, no mention of Osterdam at all. The ICZN also explicitly attributed the name to Linnaeus 1766 in a 1956 ruling (Direction 57, p. 373), and this is cited in the "Comment" section near the bottom of the page. No one has petitioned the ICZN to reverse either the 1926 or 1956 attributions to Linnaeus. The recent citations by Dubois and Rafaelli are the source of the confusion (trying to claim that Osterdam wrote the description, rather than Linnaeus) and also not relevant; an author cannot unilaterally overrule the ICZN if they disagree with a formal Opinion. Had this been a genus which had not been placed on the ICZN's Official List, then it would be subject to change of authorship, but that ship sailed back in 1926. If Dubois felt that Osterdam should be the author, then he needed to present a convincing petition to the ICZN to do so - until and unless that happens, and the ICZN votes to reverse its decision, Linnaeus is the author of record, and not Osterdam, regardless of any claims to the contrary. I'm not sure why the AMNH entry followed Dubois' lead, but I've sent a message to a contact at the AMNH to see about getting that ironed out properly so the webpage doesn't continue to give misinformation. Dyanega ( talk) 00:48, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Just letting you know that I added a DYK credit for you at Template:Did you know nominations/Astragalus crassicarpus. SL93 ( talk) 04:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Hyperik, Thank you for your edits. Concerning the ordering of the synonyms in the taxobox, so far I have consistently clustered all names based on the same type under one bullit. I did so consciously because I think this provides clarity. Also, for brevity, I abbreviate the genus name, unless more genera with the same starting letter are involved. Is there some guidance that you base these edits on? Otherwise, I think I would be wise to discuss the merits of either method and perhaps draft some guidance. What do you think? Dwergenpaartje ( talk) 11:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Hyperik, I saw your recent at Catasticta sibyllae where among other things which seemed to be a good idea, you changed "family Pieridae" to " Pieridae family". I've seen other editors making the reverse change and I've followed their lead. When I asked why they were doing it that way, they pointed me to Google Ngrams like this one and similar ( bears, squirrels and us) where going "family" first is far more common. Does that make sense to you? Thanks, SchreiberBike | ⌨ 00:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I've incorporated putting family first into my workflow when converting Polbot articles with manual taxoboxes to speciesboxes, following the practice of WolfmanSF and William Avery. But I don't have a strong preference either way, and I sometimes forget to flip the order. Plantdrew ( talk) 03:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
A point I'd like to make is that the syntactical rule we're discussing is a fairly general one, not one restricted to combinations of formal terms for taxonomic rank and taxon name. I'm not a grammarian, so I can't describe this in the most technical manner possible. However, our subject is the combination of two nouns, one more general and one more specific, neither of which can be treated as an adjective. If the meaning of the combination is the same as the meaning of the more specific noun, i.e. the more general noun simply states the category of the more specific noun, the more specific noun usually comes last. If the combination has a completely altered meaning (although probably still a related one), the more specific noun usually comes first. Consider these examples:
meaning unchanged | meaning changed |
family Hominidae, Hominidae family |
|
planet Mars, Mars planet |
|
opioid morphine, |
|
element oxygen, oxygen element | saturation oxygen, oxygen saturation |
enzyme telomerase, telomerase enzyme |
|
antibiotic penicillin, penicillin antibiotic |
|
continent Europe, |
Given the generality of the rule, I think we should be able to use inductive reasoning to infer that when combinations of "family" and Linnaean plant family names are treated less consistently than analogous combinations for animal terms or for other ranks, the outlier case represents a higher frequency of sloppy or mistaken usage due to confusion resulting from the use of "family" in both formal and informal ways. In my view, Wikipedia does not need to reflect, and thus help perpetuate, the confusion that exists in usage of this type of noun combination. WolfmanSF ( talk) 10:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Hyperik
We're working to measure the value of Wikipedia in economic terms. We want to ask you some questions about how you value being able to edit Wikipedia.
Our survey should take about 10-15 minutes of your time. We hope that you will enjoy it and find the questions interesting. All answers will be kept strictly confidential and will be anonymized before the aggregate results are published. Regretfully, we can only accept responses from people who live in the US due to restrictions in our grant-based funding.
As a reward for your participation, we will randomly pick 1 out of every 5 participants and give them $25 worth of goods of their choice from the Wikipedia store (e.g. Wikipedia themed t-shirts). Note that we can only reward you if you are based in the US.
Click here to access the survey: https://mit.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_eXJcEhLKioNHuJv
Thanks
Avi
Researcher, MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy -- Avi gan ( talk) 05:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
On 24 December 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Reticulated siren, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the leopard eel is neither a leopard nor an eel? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Reticulated siren), 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.
Gatoclass ( talk) 00:02, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
On 25 December 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Astragalus crassicarpus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the ground plum was used as medicine for horses by the Lakota people? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Astragalus crassicarpus. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Astragalus crassicarpus), 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.
— Maile ( talk) 12:01, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for all the help. I tried to change taxobox to speciesbox for Felicia echinata, but it gave a warning about the section Anhebecarpaea. Btw, Felicia has six sections: Anhebecarpaea, Dracontium, Felicia, Lignofelicia, Longistylus and Neodetris. Regards, Dwergenpaartje ( talk) 18:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for stepping up on the "updating Wikipedia based on stuff brought to the attention of plant groups on Facebook" front. I was going to take care of it myself, but I had to step away from the computer for a bit right after I found the GRIN link. Good catch on the duplicated IPNI ID on Wikidata. Plantdrew ( talk) 21:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, can you explain what you are doing in edits such as this? You appear to be emptying categories (which would then be deleted) without going through the WP:CFD process. DexDor (talk) 06:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, your edit to
Acer rousei is the way forward. Although |parent=
has been available since I added it in February 2017, and it's in the documentation for the template, it's not been "advertised" and hence is only rarely used.
My ultimate idea is that there would be a single 'autotaxobox' template, combining at least {{ Speciesbox}}, {{ Subspeciesbox}}, {{ Infraspeciesbox}} and {{ Automatic taxobox}}. You would specify (a) an entry point into the taxonomic hierarchy encoded in the taxonomy templates (b) some lower-level taxa that would be added by the taxobox template itself. One issue is what to call the 'entry point' parameter, since "parent" isn't right; it's consistently used in taxoboxes to mean the rank above the target of the taxobox, e.g. for a subspecies, the parent is the species.
Any ideas? Peter coxhead ( talk) 08:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
parent
and grandparent
work equally? Hypericum ascyron subsp. pyramidatum --> |grandparent=Hypericum sect. Roscyna |taxon=Hypericum ascyron subsp. pyramidatum
? —
Hyperik ⌜
talk⌟
18:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
in an ideal world for all– well, the world of Wikidata would have to be very different in relation to taxonomy to persuade me. Firstly, the very long discussion at wikidata:Property talk:P1420#Changing this to a string property led to the conclusion that no-one knows how to model variant views of taxa in Wikidata. (The key example there is Araceae/Lemnaceae/Lemnoideae. "Lemnaceae" and "Lemnoideae" are two different names at different ranks for the same taxon, if "taxon" is defined as a group of organisms with a particular circumscription. But "Araceae" is the name at the same rank for two different taxa, only one of which is the parent of Lemnoideae. No-one has been able to explain how this can be represented in Wikidata, or indeed in any kind of regular relational database.) Secondly, Wikidata's taxonomic entries are overwhelmingly created by scraping databases – and have to be because there isn't enough editor time to work any other way. We saw very vividly what problems this causes with the almost defunct The Plant List database – its automated scraping of entries from Tropicos, for example, was frequently completely wrong. Peter coxhead ( talk) 15:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
|refs=
in taxonomy templates, and the parent would be taken from the reference. I have been thinking about issuing a warning when a taxonomy template is created without any reference. I worry that editors would treat Wikidata as a source, if it were used to make suggestions. But it's an idea.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
20:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Hyperik, Please can you explain why you made the edits which seemed to remove several valid entries from the taxobox in the Wikipedia page for Shipworms?
In particular I'm puzzled as to why you edited the taxobox in Shipworms leaving two of its entries in red, a colour which indicates they do not exist as pages on Wikipedia?
I mean:
a) Order: Myida (shown in red) does not exist as a page on Wikipedia. So should it be Myoida, which does exist as a page on Wikipedia?
b) Superfamily: Pholadoidea (shown in red) does not exist as a page on Wikipedia. So should it be Pholadidae, which does exist as a page on Wikipedia?
I notice that others on your Talk page have asked you questions about why you have edited taxoboxes on various pages, removing entries.
Explanations are needed from you soon.
Anameisbutaname. 13:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
"I notice that others on your Talk page have asked you questions about why you have edited taxoboxes on various pages, removing entries. Explanations are needed from you soon."Is there something I missed explaining or a mistake I missed repairing above? Otherwise this feels like a threat.
Absolutely no threat was intended. All I mean is that if any links are shown in red - especially when other pages are available that would not be shown in red if the links to them contained the correct spelling - why just leave them shown in red? There were no links shown in red before you made your edits. As you made the edits which brought up the links shown in red, why don't you complete the job yourself by bringing it up at WikiProject Bivalves/Gastropods/Marine life/Tree of Life, or the article's talk page? Anameisbutaname. 11:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Hyperik, perhaps you or one of your followers could have a look at Felicia amelloides. The categories at the bottom of the page do not show properly. The code look alright to me.
Perhaps I could also ask to have a look at the quality rating, as I have extended this article quite substantially. Thanks in advance! Dwergenpaartje ( talk) 18:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Can you offer an explanation/justification for the removal of over a hundred different invasive animal species from the various categories of invasive animals? Just for example, there are dozens of insects that are invasive, yet the category now contains only 2 species. Are you planning to create a new category (or categories) for all of the invasive taxa you've de-categorized? Dyanega ( talk) 23:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
"for articles and lists dealing specifically with the introduction of species by man. Please do not add to this category [to] general articles about single organisms, unless they are concerned specifically with the species' introductions."— Hyperik ⌜ talk⌟ 23:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
"Only something like 'Category:Classified as invasive by X' would work"Maybe something global in scope, like the Global Invasive Species Database or GRIIS, though I'm not really familiar with those or if they're well-maintained. Category:Invasive species with evidence of impacts in the Global Register of Introduced and Invasive Species is a bit of a mouthful. :)
I'll try to keep this to the point: I see no reason that species which are widely known to be invasives, commonly categorized as invasives, and with citable sources stating them to be invasives, can appear in Wikipedia in Lists of Invasive Species but CANNOT be placed in any category that indicates they are invasive. That seems to be an incredibly counterintuitive and counterproductive policy. Consider just one example: at List_of_invasive_species_in_North_America there are roughly 100 insects listed as invasives. Most of them that were not redlinks USED to be in an "invasive" category, now, after Hyperik's edits, NONE of them are categorized as invasive. If these species are invasives, then there needs to be a category that they can all be placed in. Requiring that the article has to be strictly ABOUT their introduction, and not about the species itself, is not constructive at all, and removes an important tool - the use of categories - that would help people navigate Wikipedia content. Again, if we can have lists of invasive species, how is it sensible to prohibit people from using categories that reflect those lists? Dyanega ( talk) 18:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
The new article Mairia coriacea has two issues I find difficult to resolve. First issue is the hight. The review says it is 180 cm. This is very likely a typo and 18 cm was intended (flower stems are up to 17 cm, leaves up to 23 cm long, but at an angle). An other source says 12 cm, which is too low, but I took this hight for the moment. The other is the flowering time. Three sources give different periods. I suspect that the species will flower any time of the year as long as this is 11⁄2 to 2 months after a fire, but wildfires mostly occur during the summer. I now noted that sources differ and give the full span. How do you think these two issues could be solved? Thanks in advance, Dwergenpaartje ( talk) 11:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, welcome back Hyperik. While the formatting of taxobox parameters isn't especially consistent across Wikipedia, the most common format has spaces; e.g. "| taxon=Foo"; somewhat less frequently, the space between the pipe and the parameter name is omitted ("|taxon=Foo"). Full justification (extra spaces after parameter name to make all parameter values start in the same column) and omission of all spaces are pretty rare. I don't know what your motivation for removing spaces is, but I don't think it's worth the effort. Visual Editor is currently configured to produce the most common format, although that could be changed, and not many people use Visual Editor anyway. Plantdrew ( talk) 18:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I added duplicate external links that were already in the taxonbar on a bunch of spider genera pages. Thanks for helping me catch and fix this mistake. A (probably complete) list of all the pages that I worked on while adding an "External links" section is here, so you don't have to go through every single one of them. Sesame honey tart 16:03, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
When you change all the occurrences of " |" to "|" in template calls, as you have been doing recently, this causes problems when anyone tries to edit pages you've changed on a device with a small screen (e.g. an iPad or worse still an iPhone), because the software may not then be able to break up the line with the template call in it. The initial behaviour is often to make all the editable text smaller to fit in the window width, or if the text size is increased, make it necessary scroll horizontally as well as vertically. Please don't make these changes. Peter coxhead ( talk) 08:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Can you explain why you removed the category "Amphibians of North America" from Pigeon Mountain salamander? 50.68.172.46 ( talk) 17:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
iNaturalist is calling Praslina cooperi "Praslin's Caecilian". I'm pretty sure that name was first coined in these edits to Wikipedia. But I can't 100% rule out that Wikipedia got the name from iNaturalist. Would you be able to see when iNaturalist added this vernacular name and where it came from? And if it did originate with Wikipedia, could you replace it on iNaturalist with "Cooper's Black Caecilian" (which is the vernacular name given by IUCN)? The possessive form "Praslin's Caecilian" is wrong; it's named after a place, not a person (although if I had to guess what Praslin was, I'd probably guess that it was a surname). 15:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Sad stubs are better than redirects (but red-links are better still). Category:Taxon redirects with possibilities holds redirects that should be articles (although there are also several thousand such redirects that aren't in the category).
You might find this tool useful: User:Anomie/linkclassifier. It colors links to redirects differently, which helps to detect redirects that should be article titles (I use a simpler version myself: User:Plantdrew/common.css). Plantdrew ( talk) 23:05, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I just stumbled across Talk:Oligoneuron, where you'd pinged me back in August 2018, and I never responded. You asked "How do WP editors decide where this content should be placed? Where can I read more about such taxonomic policies on WP?" I assume by now you've figured out some basic answers to these questions. Did you have any further questions about which taxonomic sources are used and where to find the decisions to use them? Plantdrew ( talk) 21:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Just to say that I applaud your efforts to reduce overcategorization. Keep up the good work! Peter coxhead ( talk) 10:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks for tidying the quote but why remove the external links? Regards Notafly ( talk) 17:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC) PS The whole Seitz plates are much more useful than the abstracted images since they allow comparison. I would like to change back. What do you think?
I'm curious why you moved Rozella from the category Opistokont genera to the less specific Eukaryote genera? [6] TelosCricket ( talk) 21:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Hyperik, thanks for adding to the stub that I created yesterday. I also noticed that Hylodesmum glutinosum is included at the genus Desmodium article (as Desmodium glutinosum). As such, the genus article needs to be updated too. Unfortunately, the synonym lists in the various sources are not all in agreement and this in turn affects the inclusion of additional common names to the article. Perhaps as a plant specialist, you could look into this further to help sort out which synonyms are indeed valid. 'Cheers, Loopy30 ( talk) 21:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I'd call List of Desmodium species "list" class, not "SL" class. I'm not aware of projects beside WikiProject Plants that have this assessment class. A sourced, comprehensive list of species in a genus isn't in dire need of any improvement (assuming the source actually is comprehensive). In my opinion, SL class is for lists that are: a) woefully incomplete (pretty much any of the "List of plants of [political unit]", with List of Connecticut tree species as a particularly dreadful example) b) have no clear criteria for inclusion/completeness ( List of garden plants), or c) with an unrealistically broad scope ( List of plants by common name).
I suppose SL class would be appropriate for a species in genus list that was taken from a noncomprehensive source (such as ITIS), or a source with poor data quality (e.g. any genus on The Plant List taht is only sourced from Tropicos/"WCSP in review"). Plantdrew ( talk) 21:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Hyperik. Thanks for the sources. [rest of query moved to Deschampsia talk. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 14:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Well spotted! Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 15:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
You reverted the revision as "unsorted change". That's nonsense,but the nepenthes upper pitchers are larger. Please change it back,read a few articles about Nepenthes jamban and nepenthes inermis. The uppers are larger than the lowers,I am a nepenthes grower. User3749 ( talk) 06:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
I will give you a few more articles to proof that uppers are larger than the lowers : Nepenthes dubia, Nepenthes lowli, Nepenthes hamata. User3749 ( talk) 06:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
I might spelled that wrong. Nepenthes lowii is the correct spelling. User3749 ( talk) 07:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes,@Hyperik but just changing one single edit, I just marked it as minor and I didn't think that very small change needs any citation. User3749 ( talk) 10:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
On 27 April 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Oncosiphon pilulifer, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the globe chamomile (pictured), a member of the daisy family native to South Africa, infests parts of Arizona and California? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Oncosiphon pilulifer. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Oncosiphon pilulifer), 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.
— Maile ( talk) 12:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
K-. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 9#K- until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
1234qwer1234qwer4 (
talk)
13:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Regarding my edit to Mrigal carp, I was trying to figure out why is shows up as an error in this template report. Do you any ideas on why the report singled out Mrigal carp for "Valid Name=No"? Abductive ( reasoning) 00:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I've recently been creating some (mostly stubby) Polygalaceae articles. The average length of them has been increasing and I would like to get an opinion on how far this article is from start-class. Also, will the Taxon-specific assessment guidelines at WP:PLANTS become standard anytime soon? (It's been over a year) Username 6892 23:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure what WoRMS means by "Preferred alternate representation" at [7]. However, the double i is what you would expect from the genus name Molpadia plus the ending -ida. Peter coxhead ( talk) 15:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I was wondering why you removed the IPA from the boops boops wikipedium. I didn't add it but it seemed useful as a naïve pronunciation would yield /buːps/ which is quite different from the pronunciation used. AquitaneHungerForce ( talk) 06:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Can I ask why you are so determined to have this listed under its binomial when this species has an unambiguous and generally accepted English common name? Why not change the article House sparrow to Passer domesticus?22:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Dear Hyperik,
We seem to be crossing paths quite frequently recently. You changed my edit to this page and I thought I would try to explain myself more fully.
The taxonomic authority followed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes for Fish taxa at the level of species and genus is Fishbase. My interpretation of the refs box in the taxonomy template for a genus is that the Fishbase reference confirms that the genus is treated as valid by that source. For taxonomic levels above genus (tribe, subfamily etc.) then the Fishes project follows the 5th Edition of Fishes of the World and this is used as the parent's reference. It is possible that a genus is included in 5th Ed Fishes of the World but is not in Fishbase. Unless it is a new taxa then that would mean it is not treated as a valid genus for the purposes of WikiProject:Fishes. I therefore disagree with your edit and I hope I have explained why.
I would like us to agree a way forward with this rather than just changing each other's edits.
Yours sincerely
Quetzal1964 ( talk) 14:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
How is it possible that RHS AGM species such as Tulipa fosteriana and Tulipa kaufmanniana didn't have articles on en.wiki until I made the stubs? Abductive ( reasoning) 23:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Abductive ( reasoning) 05:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello, it's me, again. Why do you unnecessarily change the citation style of articles? The citation style of an article should be consistent, when I create an article I use a certain format. I prefer to use {{reflist}} and you use a different format. There is no need to change one to the other unless the original format is unhelpful or is used inconsistently. I don't find the format you use is in any way intuitive or easy to follow but that may be my age! Quetzal1964 ( talk) 19:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't have any preference what cats these pages are in, but I need to understand for future reference ... the 4th (Species) column isn't a taxonomic list, but if it's not a list of species, then what is it a list of? - Dank ( push to talk) 23:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
It's greatly appreciated. Hopefully, we can get more plant species on Wikipedia. NinjaWeeb ( talk) 19:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
BTW, I'm working on an article for Aglaonema simplex. It should be ready soon. NinjaWeeb ( talk) 22:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I have made a stub-class article on Campanula tommasiniana. See if you can expand onto it. Thanks in advance :)
NinjaWeeb ( talk) 23:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello Hyperik, Thank you for your help with the above - much appreciated. I'd used auto-taxobox once before, but couldn't find template on this occasion. The Cladogram already featured the Mostuea spp. in (unenlightening) alphabetical order, but I thought that it might be of interest because it at least shows Mostuea in relation to the other two genera - sorry. Flobbadob ( talk) 21:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Please use the WP:Requested move process to rename articles. It looks as if you have instead made a copy-and-paste move of some of the former article Whitish truffle to Tuber borchii. This method fails to give attribution to the work. – Fayenatic London 22:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
|
for nudging me to start editing :) TRHblue ( talk) 22:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC) |
Hi, Hyperik! Thanks for your recent additions to the Symphyotrichum lateriflorum page. I noticed that you use the new Flora of the Chicago Region. Does it have anything in it about a common leaf miner for that species or for the genus in general? Many of my observations in person and the ones I review on iNat have leaf miner feeding. I wondered if you have a source for that and, if so, if it could be added to the Wikipedia page?
Also, a common visitor to the same plant seems to be Polistes fuscatus. Not just my observations but others on iNat. Do you have a reference for that in the same book? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eewilson ( talk • contribs) 22:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
It is customary to apply a {{cn}} tag to passages for which one thinks need a citation, not delete the information. Abductive ( reasoning) 07:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
FYI I
noticed
some cases recently where an identical |from2=
was added to a pre-existing |from=
/|from1=
. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf)
13:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Starzoner! There are a few common things that would be helpful to update in your process when creating articles about species:
[[Category:Schefflera|stolleana]]
rather than [[:Category:Schefflera|stolleana]]
taxon=
OR genus=
and species=
, not both{{WikiProject Plants|class=stub|importance=low|needs-image=yes}}
thanks! — Hyperik ⌜ talk⌟ 21:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Could you remove the existing note about them being perennial plants in the Vernonia articles you published? That info isn't supported by the reference you provided. Thank you! — Hyperik ⌜ talk⌟ 21:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Hyperik, anything else I should work on? Starzoner ( talk) 19:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
An article you recently created,
Pleurothallis cactantha, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from
reliable,
independent sources. (
?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (
verifiability is of
central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to
draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:
" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's
general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.
Onel5969
TT me
12:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
so ugh, what do you think of Pinalia amplectens and User:Starzoner/Eria andamanica? Starzoner ( talk) 03:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Pholidota requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 15:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hello, Hyperik/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
from Tapir Terrific 02:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Talk to me!
Hi, this was misnamed, and I can't move it to Category space. I'm going to delete it, please recreate it without the "Editing" on the front. :) User:Zoe| (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering why you reverted [1] my edit of Template:User NHS. I have userfied the box at User:WillMak050389/User NHS, and thanks to User:MetsBot, all user pages and links have been converted. Please reply why you have done this, or am going to revert this back. Thanks. -- Will Mak 050389
Hi! I wanted to know why you removed my reference to Balthamos eating and its connection to Paradise Lost.
Cheers! Thanks for your contributions to the AP Calculus article! -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 07:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi there,
Sorry for the late response, I have been struggling trying to comprehend the messaging system on Wikipedia. In response to your question about the carniverous tadpoles bit I added to the frog section: I know this to be true as I have a pond in my back garden and every year when the tadpoles arrive I have observed this. The first to develop into froglets seem to be targeted by the larger of the tadpoles and devoured. I can't say why this is, maybe because the froglets look different and no longer are recognised by their peers. But never the less it happens. The frogs leaving a baby sitter (which I also stated on the frogs page) I have also observed and this has been confirm'd.
Thanks for asking!
Max Warren
P.S. I like your user profile page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ghidorah221 ( talk • contribs) 07:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
A tag has been placed on Vince Dibattista requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you.
Jay Pegg (
talk)
23:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Duluth Area Speedskating Club, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Zodon ( talk) 06:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, you have taken some good pictures. Would you mind uploading them to Wikimedia? Your clap skate hinge photo is very illustrating. Thanks, -- Teodor605 ( talk) 15:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Evanston S.P.A.C.E. requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact
one of these administrators to request that the administrator
userfy the page or email a copy to you. —
C45207 |
Talk
10:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
The article Scott Anderson (pilot) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Michig (
talk)
13:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Scott Anderson (pilot) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Anderson (pilot) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Michig ( talk) 19:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey Chickenflicker; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 21:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Your upload of File:Clapskate2.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.
This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot ( opt-out) 14:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
The article The Talking Farm has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
No indication that this very local project is of encyclopedic value or that it is recognized as having a broader importance than that which is picked up just by the local paper.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Drmies (
talk)
18:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for creating Bupleuroides (Section), Chickenflicker!
Wikipedia editor Nick Moyes just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
I was half minded to change this redirect to Hypericum bupleuroides as it's a mononotypic section. But I guess it puts that section into its broader context, from where just one more click would take you to the species, it required.
To reply, leave a comment on Nick Moyes's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Nick Moyes ( talk) 09:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for creating Hypericum sect. Myriandra, Chickenflicker!
Wikipedia editor Nick Moyes just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
So why a different naming style from the previous Hypericum section?
To reply, leave a comment on Nick Moyes's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Nick Moyes ( talk) 09:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for creating Reference ecosystem, Hyperik!
Wikipedia editor Nick Moyes just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Please try and add more than one reference in future - it avoids accusations of a term being a neologism. I've added a couple more for you.
To reply, leave a comment on Nick Moyes's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Nick Moyes ( talk) 23:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for creating Ampelamus laevis, Hyperik!
Wikipedia editor Bennv3771 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Would be helpful if you tag it as a stub. See Template:Plant-stub on how to do this.
To reply, leave a comment on Bennv3771's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Bennv3771 ( talk) 02:03, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for creating Thalictrum dasycarpum, Hyperik!
Wikipedia editor SkyGazer 512 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Thank you for creating all these good-quality articles.
To reply, leave a comment on SkyGazer 512's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 22:58, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Hyperik, 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) 17:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Just to express my appreciation for the work you've been doing completing taxonbars for monotypic genera. Peter coxhead ( talk) 20:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I was disappointed to see you reverting as if vandalism rather than undoing politely, indeed rather than discussing, ... indeed rather than leaving the matter alone, as it's hard to see what justification there can be for your addition of those links in the first place. There is no value in adding red authorlinks; if you think those authors deserve articles, by all means write them, and then do a search for places to link. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 14:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, the {{
Taxonbar}} template does pick up multiple Wikidata items when the taxon synonym property is properly specified in Wikidata. However, we've generally taken the view that it's better not to rely on properties remaining in place at Wikidata, which has many fewer editors to take care of vandalism than there are here. So when there are Wikidata items for synonyms, as at
Tetraena giessii, it's best to add all of them to the taxonbar, using |from1=
, |from2=
, etc.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
11:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Hey, just wanted to give you a quick thanks for your edits on Hypericum densiflorum and other species in the genus. Those little edits with format and taxonbars and the like really add up and make a difference. If you're looking for other species similar to those to edit and improve, check out WikiProject Hypericaceae, a project recently started to try to elevate the St. John's Wort family (which Hypericum is a part of) to a higher overall article quality. Feel free to add yourself to the participants list as well if you feel so inclined.
If you have any issues or need any help- or want to collaborate on a project- please don't hesitate to shoot me a response here or visit my talk page at any time. Editing is always more enjoyable when you aren't going at it solo!
Best Regards, Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 00:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
If you could add a source for the first two paragraphs in the description of Parthenocissus inserta (is it from the Jepson Manual?), then the "additional sources" notice could be removed, which would look better. Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I saw you're trying to get a duplicate taxonomy template for Peoria deleted. When I create a bad taxonomy template (usually from a typo), I go with author requests deletion ( WP:G7). That gets it deleted in a matter of hours rather than days.
Also, it's not necessary to add a disambiguator to the taxonomy template name unless there is another taxon with the same name. I suppose an argument could be made for keeping the template name consistent with the article title, but I've also heard the argument made that when two taxa share a name, we can just pick one of them to be the "primary topic" of an undisambiguated taxonomy template (the reasoning being that the title of the taxonomy template is entirely invisible to readers and it can save editors from having to type a disambiguator). Personally, I only create disambiguated taxonomy templates when there is another taxon with the same name on Wikipedia. Plantdrew ( talk) 20:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
ProgrammingGeek talktome 03:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)If there is value present in |name=
for a Taxobox or Automatic taxobox, it stops the title from being displayed in italics, and {{
Italic title}} needs to be used (you'd removed the italic title template in
Tropidia, but there was a value for the name parameter). The italicization sensing for Speciesbox is more robust, and still works when there is a name value.
Plantdrew (
talk)
19:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
|type_genus=
).@ Plantdrew and Hyperik: (re italic titles) around January 2017 I made some fixes to {{ Speciesbox}} which mean that it does handle automatically including {{ Italic title}} better, as Plantdrew notes above, although not perfectly. Something similar needs to be done for other taxoboxes. The problem is the sheer complexity and number of cases that have to be handled, when articles can be at English names, species names, genus names, disambiguated genus names, ranks not requiring italics, ranks requiring mixed italicization (like sections or subgenera), etc. and taxoboxes have names (titles) which may or may not be the same as the article title or the target taxon. Much of the taxobox system, manual and automated, ideally needs re-implementing cleanly, as its incremental growth since 2004 has resulted in layers of fixes obscuring the underlying logic. But this would be a huge task! Peter coxhead ( talk) 12:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey Hyperik, just saw your new article Hypericum assamicum and wanted to give you a heads up that you can submit it as an article at Wikipedia:Asian Month as a part of that competition because it is flora of Asia. You can also add the template to the talk page to mark it as a contribution to the 2018 Wikipedia Asian Month. Thanks for your contributions, Fritzmann2002 T, c, s, t 17:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Apologies, I neglected to leave an edit comment when upmerging Category:Stillingia. Categories should be of a "reasonable size". There's no rigid rule, but it's often best to think about it the other way round: if all the articles were put into the parent category, would this need to be diffused? Peter coxhead ( talk) 21:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Hyperik, for all the taxoboxes. --Gpkp ( u • t • c) 15:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, you replaced a manual taxobox with an automatic one here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Pyrophorini&oldid=871229270 The automatic taxobox is wrong though. Agrypninae is the current subfamily, not Pyrophorinae. How do I update this so the automatic taxobox is correct? - Photocyte ( talk) 19:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello - thank you for your edits, many of which I agree with. However, I would take issue on a couple of points where you have:
Brgds Roy Bateman ( talk) 12:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article. It is usually very short...Although Stub-class articles are the lowest class of the normal classes, they are adequate enough to be an accepted article, though they do have risks of being dropped from being an article altogether....Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. Readers probably see insufficiently developed features of the topic...The stub example for plants is in line with how I have been rating Orthoptera articles. For me, no physical description usually means it won't yet be a "start".
Thanks for adding the image of this species. However I think it is by no means a typical image of this species. Sorry. Try : http://www.algaebase.org/. I do not know how to add an image and whether there is any copyright requirements! User:Osborne 17:35, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I would not be so bold as to remove a photograph you had lodged! The one you suggest is better - I'll take a look around and see what I can find. Thanks. Osborne 19:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
That's much better - I think anyhow! I'll have to learn how to download an image.Osborne 21:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I saw the change of authorship you made on the Siren page, but I think you've been misled by an erroneous online resource; the AMNH page [2] has got the wrong author name, and it's fairly obvious as to the source of the confusion. There is a link near the top to a 1926 ruling (Opinion 92) with the claim that Osterdam was the author. If you read the ruling itself [3], you will note that it says no such thing; in Opinion 92, Linnaeus was explicitly given authorship, no mention of Osterdam at all. The ICZN also explicitly attributed the name to Linnaeus 1766 in a 1956 ruling (Direction 57, p. 373), and this is cited in the "Comment" section near the bottom of the page. No one has petitioned the ICZN to reverse either the 1926 or 1956 attributions to Linnaeus. The recent citations by Dubois and Rafaelli are the source of the confusion (trying to claim that Osterdam wrote the description, rather than Linnaeus) and also not relevant; an author cannot unilaterally overrule the ICZN if they disagree with a formal Opinion. Had this been a genus which had not been placed on the ICZN's Official List, then it would be subject to change of authorship, but that ship sailed back in 1926. If Dubois felt that Osterdam should be the author, then he needed to present a convincing petition to the ICZN to do so - until and unless that happens, and the ICZN votes to reverse its decision, Linnaeus is the author of record, and not Osterdam, regardless of any claims to the contrary. I'm not sure why the AMNH entry followed Dubois' lead, but I've sent a message to a contact at the AMNH to see about getting that ironed out properly so the webpage doesn't continue to give misinformation. Dyanega ( talk) 00:48, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Just letting you know that I added a DYK credit for you at Template:Did you know nominations/Astragalus crassicarpus. SL93 ( talk) 04:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Hyperik, Thank you for your edits. Concerning the ordering of the synonyms in the taxobox, so far I have consistently clustered all names based on the same type under one bullit. I did so consciously because I think this provides clarity. Also, for brevity, I abbreviate the genus name, unless more genera with the same starting letter are involved. Is there some guidance that you base these edits on? Otherwise, I think I would be wise to discuss the merits of either method and perhaps draft some guidance. What do you think? Dwergenpaartje ( talk) 11:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Hyperik, I saw your recent at Catasticta sibyllae where among other things which seemed to be a good idea, you changed "family Pieridae" to " Pieridae family". I've seen other editors making the reverse change and I've followed their lead. When I asked why they were doing it that way, they pointed me to Google Ngrams like this one and similar ( bears, squirrels and us) where going "family" first is far more common. Does that make sense to you? Thanks, SchreiberBike | ⌨ 00:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I've incorporated putting family first into my workflow when converting Polbot articles with manual taxoboxes to speciesboxes, following the practice of WolfmanSF and William Avery. But I don't have a strong preference either way, and I sometimes forget to flip the order. Plantdrew ( talk) 03:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
A point I'd like to make is that the syntactical rule we're discussing is a fairly general one, not one restricted to combinations of formal terms for taxonomic rank and taxon name. I'm not a grammarian, so I can't describe this in the most technical manner possible. However, our subject is the combination of two nouns, one more general and one more specific, neither of which can be treated as an adjective. If the meaning of the combination is the same as the meaning of the more specific noun, i.e. the more general noun simply states the category of the more specific noun, the more specific noun usually comes last. If the combination has a completely altered meaning (although probably still a related one), the more specific noun usually comes first. Consider these examples:
meaning unchanged | meaning changed |
family Hominidae, Hominidae family |
|
planet Mars, Mars planet |
|
opioid morphine, |
|
element oxygen, oxygen element | saturation oxygen, oxygen saturation |
enzyme telomerase, telomerase enzyme |
|
antibiotic penicillin, penicillin antibiotic |
|
continent Europe, |
Given the generality of the rule, I think we should be able to use inductive reasoning to infer that when combinations of "family" and Linnaean plant family names are treated less consistently than analogous combinations for animal terms or for other ranks, the outlier case represents a higher frequency of sloppy or mistaken usage due to confusion resulting from the use of "family" in both formal and informal ways. In my view, Wikipedia does not need to reflect, and thus help perpetuate, the confusion that exists in usage of this type of noun combination. WolfmanSF ( talk) 10:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Hyperik
We're working to measure the value of Wikipedia in economic terms. We want to ask you some questions about how you value being able to edit Wikipedia.
Our survey should take about 10-15 minutes of your time. We hope that you will enjoy it and find the questions interesting. All answers will be kept strictly confidential and will be anonymized before the aggregate results are published. Regretfully, we can only accept responses from people who live in the US due to restrictions in our grant-based funding.
As a reward for your participation, we will randomly pick 1 out of every 5 participants and give them $25 worth of goods of their choice from the Wikipedia store (e.g. Wikipedia themed t-shirts). Note that we can only reward you if you are based in the US.
Click here to access the survey: https://mit.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_eXJcEhLKioNHuJv
Thanks
Avi
Researcher, MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy -- Avi gan ( talk) 05:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
On 24 December 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Reticulated siren, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the leopard eel is neither a leopard nor an eel? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Reticulated siren), 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.
Gatoclass ( talk) 00:02, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
On 25 December 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Astragalus crassicarpus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the ground plum was used as medicine for horses by the Lakota people? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Astragalus crassicarpus. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Astragalus crassicarpus), 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.
— Maile ( talk) 12:01, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for all the help. I tried to change taxobox to speciesbox for Felicia echinata, but it gave a warning about the section Anhebecarpaea. Btw, Felicia has six sections: Anhebecarpaea, Dracontium, Felicia, Lignofelicia, Longistylus and Neodetris. Regards, Dwergenpaartje ( talk) 18:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for stepping up on the "updating Wikipedia based on stuff brought to the attention of plant groups on Facebook" front. I was going to take care of it myself, but I had to step away from the computer for a bit right after I found the GRIN link. Good catch on the duplicated IPNI ID on Wikidata. Plantdrew ( talk) 21:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, can you explain what you are doing in edits such as this? You appear to be emptying categories (which would then be deleted) without going through the WP:CFD process. DexDor (talk) 06:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, your edit to
Acer rousei is the way forward. Although |parent=
has been available since I added it in February 2017, and it's in the documentation for the template, it's not been "advertised" and hence is only rarely used.
My ultimate idea is that there would be a single 'autotaxobox' template, combining at least {{ Speciesbox}}, {{ Subspeciesbox}}, {{ Infraspeciesbox}} and {{ Automatic taxobox}}. You would specify (a) an entry point into the taxonomic hierarchy encoded in the taxonomy templates (b) some lower-level taxa that would be added by the taxobox template itself. One issue is what to call the 'entry point' parameter, since "parent" isn't right; it's consistently used in taxoboxes to mean the rank above the target of the taxobox, e.g. for a subspecies, the parent is the species.
Any ideas? Peter coxhead ( talk) 08:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
parent
and grandparent
work equally? Hypericum ascyron subsp. pyramidatum --> |grandparent=Hypericum sect. Roscyna |taxon=Hypericum ascyron subsp. pyramidatum
? —
Hyperik ⌜
talk⌟
18:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
in an ideal world for all– well, the world of Wikidata would have to be very different in relation to taxonomy to persuade me. Firstly, the very long discussion at wikidata:Property talk:P1420#Changing this to a string property led to the conclusion that no-one knows how to model variant views of taxa in Wikidata. (The key example there is Araceae/Lemnaceae/Lemnoideae. "Lemnaceae" and "Lemnoideae" are two different names at different ranks for the same taxon, if "taxon" is defined as a group of organisms with a particular circumscription. But "Araceae" is the name at the same rank for two different taxa, only one of which is the parent of Lemnoideae. No-one has been able to explain how this can be represented in Wikidata, or indeed in any kind of regular relational database.) Secondly, Wikidata's taxonomic entries are overwhelmingly created by scraping databases – and have to be because there isn't enough editor time to work any other way. We saw very vividly what problems this causes with the almost defunct The Plant List database – its automated scraping of entries from Tropicos, for example, was frequently completely wrong. Peter coxhead ( talk) 15:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
|refs=
in taxonomy templates, and the parent would be taken from the reference. I have been thinking about issuing a warning when a taxonomy template is created without any reference. I worry that editors would treat Wikidata as a source, if it were used to make suggestions. But it's an idea.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
20:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Hyperik, Please can you explain why you made the edits which seemed to remove several valid entries from the taxobox in the Wikipedia page for Shipworms?
In particular I'm puzzled as to why you edited the taxobox in Shipworms leaving two of its entries in red, a colour which indicates they do not exist as pages on Wikipedia?
I mean:
a) Order: Myida (shown in red) does not exist as a page on Wikipedia. So should it be Myoida, which does exist as a page on Wikipedia?
b) Superfamily: Pholadoidea (shown in red) does not exist as a page on Wikipedia. So should it be Pholadidae, which does exist as a page on Wikipedia?
I notice that others on your Talk page have asked you questions about why you have edited taxoboxes on various pages, removing entries.
Explanations are needed from you soon.
Anameisbutaname. 13:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
"I notice that others on your Talk page have asked you questions about why you have edited taxoboxes on various pages, removing entries. Explanations are needed from you soon."Is there something I missed explaining or a mistake I missed repairing above? Otherwise this feels like a threat.
Absolutely no threat was intended. All I mean is that if any links are shown in red - especially when other pages are available that would not be shown in red if the links to them contained the correct spelling - why just leave them shown in red? There were no links shown in red before you made your edits. As you made the edits which brought up the links shown in red, why don't you complete the job yourself by bringing it up at WikiProject Bivalves/Gastropods/Marine life/Tree of Life, or the article's talk page? Anameisbutaname. 11:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Hyperik, perhaps you or one of your followers could have a look at Felicia amelloides. The categories at the bottom of the page do not show properly. The code look alright to me.
Perhaps I could also ask to have a look at the quality rating, as I have extended this article quite substantially. Thanks in advance! Dwergenpaartje ( talk) 18:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Can you offer an explanation/justification for the removal of over a hundred different invasive animal species from the various categories of invasive animals? Just for example, there are dozens of insects that are invasive, yet the category now contains only 2 species. Are you planning to create a new category (or categories) for all of the invasive taxa you've de-categorized? Dyanega ( talk) 23:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
"for articles and lists dealing specifically with the introduction of species by man. Please do not add to this category [to] general articles about single organisms, unless they are concerned specifically with the species' introductions."— Hyperik ⌜ talk⌟ 23:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
"Only something like 'Category:Classified as invasive by X' would work"Maybe something global in scope, like the Global Invasive Species Database or GRIIS, though I'm not really familiar with those or if they're well-maintained. Category:Invasive species with evidence of impacts in the Global Register of Introduced and Invasive Species is a bit of a mouthful. :)
I'll try to keep this to the point: I see no reason that species which are widely known to be invasives, commonly categorized as invasives, and with citable sources stating them to be invasives, can appear in Wikipedia in Lists of Invasive Species but CANNOT be placed in any category that indicates they are invasive. That seems to be an incredibly counterintuitive and counterproductive policy. Consider just one example: at List_of_invasive_species_in_North_America there are roughly 100 insects listed as invasives. Most of them that were not redlinks USED to be in an "invasive" category, now, after Hyperik's edits, NONE of them are categorized as invasive. If these species are invasives, then there needs to be a category that they can all be placed in. Requiring that the article has to be strictly ABOUT their introduction, and not about the species itself, is not constructive at all, and removes an important tool - the use of categories - that would help people navigate Wikipedia content. Again, if we can have lists of invasive species, how is it sensible to prohibit people from using categories that reflect those lists? Dyanega ( talk) 18:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
The new article Mairia coriacea has two issues I find difficult to resolve. First issue is the hight. The review says it is 180 cm. This is very likely a typo and 18 cm was intended (flower stems are up to 17 cm, leaves up to 23 cm long, but at an angle). An other source says 12 cm, which is too low, but I took this hight for the moment. The other is the flowering time. Three sources give different periods. I suspect that the species will flower any time of the year as long as this is 11⁄2 to 2 months after a fire, but wildfires mostly occur during the summer. I now noted that sources differ and give the full span. How do you think these two issues could be solved? Thanks in advance, Dwergenpaartje ( talk) 11:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, welcome back Hyperik. While the formatting of taxobox parameters isn't especially consistent across Wikipedia, the most common format has spaces; e.g. "| taxon=Foo"; somewhat less frequently, the space between the pipe and the parameter name is omitted ("|taxon=Foo"). Full justification (extra spaces after parameter name to make all parameter values start in the same column) and omission of all spaces are pretty rare. I don't know what your motivation for removing spaces is, but I don't think it's worth the effort. Visual Editor is currently configured to produce the most common format, although that could be changed, and not many people use Visual Editor anyway. Plantdrew ( talk) 18:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I added duplicate external links that were already in the taxonbar on a bunch of spider genera pages. Thanks for helping me catch and fix this mistake. A (probably complete) list of all the pages that I worked on while adding an "External links" section is here, so you don't have to go through every single one of them. Sesame honey tart 16:03, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
When you change all the occurrences of " |" to "|" in template calls, as you have been doing recently, this causes problems when anyone tries to edit pages you've changed on a device with a small screen (e.g. an iPad or worse still an iPhone), because the software may not then be able to break up the line with the template call in it. The initial behaviour is often to make all the editable text smaller to fit in the window width, or if the text size is increased, make it necessary scroll horizontally as well as vertically. Please don't make these changes. Peter coxhead ( talk) 08:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Can you explain why you removed the category "Amphibians of North America" from Pigeon Mountain salamander? 50.68.172.46 ( talk) 17:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
iNaturalist is calling Praslina cooperi "Praslin's Caecilian". I'm pretty sure that name was first coined in these edits to Wikipedia. But I can't 100% rule out that Wikipedia got the name from iNaturalist. Would you be able to see when iNaturalist added this vernacular name and where it came from? And if it did originate with Wikipedia, could you replace it on iNaturalist with "Cooper's Black Caecilian" (which is the vernacular name given by IUCN)? The possessive form "Praslin's Caecilian" is wrong; it's named after a place, not a person (although if I had to guess what Praslin was, I'd probably guess that it was a surname). 15:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Sad stubs are better than redirects (but red-links are better still). Category:Taxon redirects with possibilities holds redirects that should be articles (although there are also several thousand such redirects that aren't in the category).
You might find this tool useful: User:Anomie/linkclassifier. It colors links to redirects differently, which helps to detect redirects that should be article titles (I use a simpler version myself: User:Plantdrew/common.css). Plantdrew ( talk) 23:05, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I just stumbled across Talk:Oligoneuron, where you'd pinged me back in August 2018, and I never responded. You asked "How do WP editors decide where this content should be placed? Where can I read more about such taxonomic policies on WP?" I assume by now you've figured out some basic answers to these questions. Did you have any further questions about which taxonomic sources are used and where to find the decisions to use them? Plantdrew ( talk) 21:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Just to say that I applaud your efforts to reduce overcategorization. Keep up the good work! Peter coxhead ( talk) 10:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks for tidying the quote but why remove the external links? Regards Notafly ( talk) 17:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC) PS The whole Seitz plates are much more useful than the abstracted images since they allow comparison. I would like to change back. What do you think?
I'm curious why you moved Rozella from the category Opistokont genera to the less specific Eukaryote genera? [6] TelosCricket ( talk) 21:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Hyperik, thanks for adding to the stub that I created yesterday. I also noticed that Hylodesmum glutinosum is included at the genus Desmodium article (as Desmodium glutinosum). As such, the genus article needs to be updated too. Unfortunately, the synonym lists in the various sources are not all in agreement and this in turn affects the inclusion of additional common names to the article. Perhaps as a plant specialist, you could look into this further to help sort out which synonyms are indeed valid. 'Cheers, Loopy30 ( talk) 21:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I'd call List of Desmodium species "list" class, not "SL" class. I'm not aware of projects beside WikiProject Plants that have this assessment class. A sourced, comprehensive list of species in a genus isn't in dire need of any improvement (assuming the source actually is comprehensive). In my opinion, SL class is for lists that are: a) woefully incomplete (pretty much any of the "List of plants of [political unit]", with List of Connecticut tree species as a particularly dreadful example) b) have no clear criteria for inclusion/completeness ( List of garden plants), or c) with an unrealistically broad scope ( List of plants by common name).
I suppose SL class would be appropriate for a species in genus list that was taken from a noncomprehensive source (such as ITIS), or a source with poor data quality (e.g. any genus on The Plant List taht is only sourced from Tropicos/"WCSP in review"). Plantdrew ( talk) 21:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Hyperik. Thanks for the sources. [rest of query moved to Deschampsia talk. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 14:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Well spotted! Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 15:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
You reverted the revision as "unsorted change". That's nonsense,but the nepenthes upper pitchers are larger. Please change it back,read a few articles about Nepenthes jamban and nepenthes inermis. The uppers are larger than the lowers,I am a nepenthes grower. User3749 ( talk) 06:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
I will give you a few more articles to proof that uppers are larger than the lowers : Nepenthes dubia, Nepenthes lowli, Nepenthes hamata. User3749 ( talk) 06:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
I might spelled that wrong. Nepenthes lowii is the correct spelling. User3749 ( talk) 07:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes,@Hyperik but just changing one single edit, I just marked it as minor and I didn't think that very small change needs any citation. User3749 ( talk) 10:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
On 27 April 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Oncosiphon pilulifer, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the globe chamomile (pictured), a member of the daisy family native to South Africa, infests parts of Arizona and California? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Oncosiphon pilulifer. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Oncosiphon pilulifer), 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.
— Maile ( talk) 12:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
K-. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 9#K- until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
1234qwer1234qwer4 (
talk)
13:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Regarding my edit to Mrigal carp, I was trying to figure out why is shows up as an error in this template report. Do you any ideas on why the report singled out Mrigal carp for "Valid Name=No"? Abductive ( reasoning) 00:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I've recently been creating some (mostly stubby) Polygalaceae articles. The average length of them has been increasing and I would like to get an opinion on how far this article is from start-class. Also, will the Taxon-specific assessment guidelines at WP:PLANTS become standard anytime soon? (It's been over a year) Username 6892 23:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure what WoRMS means by "Preferred alternate representation" at [7]. However, the double i is what you would expect from the genus name Molpadia plus the ending -ida. Peter coxhead ( talk) 15:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I was wondering why you removed the IPA from the boops boops wikipedium. I didn't add it but it seemed useful as a naïve pronunciation would yield /buːps/ which is quite different from the pronunciation used. AquitaneHungerForce ( talk) 06:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Can I ask why you are so determined to have this listed under its binomial when this species has an unambiguous and generally accepted English common name? Why not change the article House sparrow to Passer domesticus?22:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Dear Hyperik,
We seem to be crossing paths quite frequently recently. You changed my edit to this page and I thought I would try to explain myself more fully.
The taxonomic authority followed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes for Fish taxa at the level of species and genus is Fishbase. My interpretation of the refs box in the taxonomy template for a genus is that the Fishbase reference confirms that the genus is treated as valid by that source. For taxonomic levels above genus (tribe, subfamily etc.) then the Fishes project follows the 5th Edition of Fishes of the World and this is used as the parent's reference. It is possible that a genus is included in 5th Ed Fishes of the World but is not in Fishbase. Unless it is a new taxa then that would mean it is not treated as a valid genus for the purposes of WikiProject:Fishes. I therefore disagree with your edit and I hope I have explained why.
I would like us to agree a way forward with this rather than just changing each other's edits.
Yours sincerely
Quetzal1964 ( talk) 14:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
How is it possible that RHS AGM species such as Tulipa fosteriana and Tulipa kaufmanniana didn't have articles on en.wiki until I made the stubs? Abductive ( reasoning) 23:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Abductive ( reasoning) 05:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello, it's me, again. Why do you unnecessarily change the citation style of articles? The citation style of an article should be consistent, when I create an article I use a certain format. I prefer to use {{reflist}} and you use a different format. There is no need to change one to the other unless the original format is unhelpful or is used inconsistently. I don't find the format you use is in any way intuitive or easy to follow but that may be my age! Quetzal1964 ( talk) 19:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't have any preference what cats these pages are in, but I need to understand for future reference ... the 4th (Species) column isn't a taxonomic list, but if it's not a list of species, then what is it a list of? - Dank ( push to talk) 23:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
It's greatly appreciated. Hopefully, we can get more plant species on Wikipedia. NinjaWeeb ( talk) 19:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
BTW, I'm working on an article for Aglaonema simplex. It should be ready soon. NinjaWeeb ( talk) 22:24, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello. I have made a stub-class article on Campanula tommasiniana. See if you can expand onto it. Thanks in advance :)
NinjaWeeb ( talk) 23:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Hello Hyperik, Thank you for your help with the above - much appreciated. I'd used auto-taxobox once before, but couldn't find template on this occasion. The Cladogram already featured the Mostuea spp. in (unenlightening) alphabetical order, but I thought that it might be of interest because it at least shows Mostuea in relation to the other two genera - sorry. Flobbadob ( talk) 21:53, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Please use the WP:Requested move process to rename articles. It looks as if you have instead made a copy-and-paste move of some of the former article Whitish truffle to Tuber borchii. This method fails to give attribution to the work. – Fayenatic London 22:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
|
for nudging me to start editing :) TRHblue ( talk) 22:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC) |
Hi, Hyperik! Thanks for your recent additions to the Symphyotrichum lateriflorum page. I noticed that you use the new Flora of the Chicago Region. Does it have anything in it about a common leaf miner for that species or for the genus in general? Many of my observations in person and the ones I review on iNat have leaf miner feeding. I wondered if you have a source for that and, if so, if it could be added to the Wikipedia page?
Also, a common visitor to the same plant seems to be Polistes fuscatus. Not just my observations but others on iNat. Do you have a reference for that in the same book? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eewilson ( talk • contribs) 22:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
It is customary to apply a {{cn}} tag to passages for which one thinks need a citation, not delete the information. Abductive ( reasoning) 07:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
FYI I
noticed
some cases recently where an identical |from2=
was added to a pre-existing |from=
/|from1=
. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf)
13:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Starzoner! There are a few common things that would be helpful to update in your process when creating articles about species:
[[Category:Schefflera|stolleana]]
rather than [[:Category:Schefflera|stolleana]]
taxon=
OR genus=
and species=
, not both{{WikiProject Plants|class=stub|importance=low|needs-image=yes}}
thanks! — Hyperik ⌜ talk⌟ 21:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Could you remove the existing note about them being perennial plants in the Vernonia articles you published? That info isn't supported by the reference you provided. Thank you! — Hyperik ⌜ talk⌟ 21:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Hyperik, anything else I should work on? Starzoner ( talk) 19:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
An article you recently created,
Pleurothallis cactantha, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from
reliable,
independent sources. (
?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (
verifiability is of
central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to
draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:
" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's
general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.
Onel5969
TT me
12:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
so ugh, what do you think of Pinalia amplectens and User:Starzoner/Eria andamanica? Starzoner ( talk) 03:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Category:Pholidota requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 15:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |