This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
-- Casliber ( talk · contribs) 16:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
-- The DYK project ( nominate) 00:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
-- The DYK project ( nominate) 00:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arostropsis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antennae ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
-- Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 00:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
-- Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 08:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
-- Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
-- Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 08:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
-- Casliber ( talk · contribs) 08:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
-- The DYK project ( nominate) 08:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2007 in paleontology, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Oxfordian and Michael J. Ryan ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
-- Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
-- Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 16:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
-- Yngvadottir ( talk) 00:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I have approved your article Mastotermes electromexicus for DYK. The third sentence in the Description section needs attention as it does not make sense at the moment.
Thank you for reviewing various articles written by me over the last few months. With the WikiCup drawing to a conclusion shortly I will no longer feel it necessary to submit so many articles for DYK in the future. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 05:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
-- Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 00:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Great, you managed to obtain cuteness on the main page. It would have been much cuter if it had been accurate, rather than falling into the bulk of recent DYKs with inaccuracy paramount.
To say it was "calico," is incorrect. It is "P. calico," and, no, you don't get to make up new meanings for binomial nomenclature. Saying it "was calico," implies it had some calico description, but does not mean that its specific epithet was "calico," and if it was, what is its specific epithet now?
Bravo. Cute. - Fjozk ( talk) 01:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
-- Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 16:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
-- The DYK project ( nominate) 00:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Automatic Strikeout 16:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
The 200 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal | ||
Oh, it seems like its only 150 articles ago since I gave you your award for 50. There used to be an advert on UK TV where the aunt says "ooo! you've got an 'ology". That reminded me of your talk page. :-) Its always the pictures that inspire me with your numerous articles on extinct insects and stuff. Well done. Victuallers ( talk) 20:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC) |
-- Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 16:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
-- Yngvadottir ( talk) 16:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
-- Casliber ( talk · contribs) 16:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Please do not undo the changes I'm doing in the pages I created. Sergio Kaminski ( talk)
The pages that you changed was that I edited. There are still some problems of classification of these plants. I'm still trying to solve these problems because the text of the original authors are contradictory. Sergio Kaminski ( talk) 09:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
The information you added was, for the most part, already covered in the articles though. Given you additions to the Samara (fruit) page that i reverted, I have reservations about the accuracy of ht information you are translating.-- Kev min § 11:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
-- The DYK project ( nominate) 16:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
J.H.McDonnell is once again "simplifying references" in Bivalvia. I notice that you have advised him in the past not to do this. Cheers. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 14:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
-- Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 00:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
-- Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 16:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 16:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Acer ivanofense at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! GregorB ( talk) 22:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Acer traini at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Rosiestep ( talk) 02:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
-- Gatoclass ( talk) 12:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
--Gatoclass 00:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
The Bivalve Barnstar | ||
This spiny Spondylus Barnstar is awarded to you Kevmin, in recognition of all your 2012 work on the subject of bivalve mollusks as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Bivalves, including many articles on fossil bivalves. All of your efforts are much appreciated! Invertzoo ( talk) 18:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC) |
Hello! Your submission of Orontium wolfei at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Rosiestep ( talk) 01:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
-- KTC ( talk) 08:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi! You've recently reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Carmenelectra shechisme. I've slightly changed the hook you approved. Do you object? Surtsicna ( talk) 03:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
-- Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 08:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hymenaea mexicana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lamina ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 00:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
-- Nyttend ( talk · contribs) 00:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
A few months ago, you participated in a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Did you know about Gibraltar-related DYKs on the Main Page. I am proposing that the temporary restrictions on such DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012, should be lifted and have set out a case for doing so at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs. If you have a view on this, please comment at that page. Prioryman ( talk) 21:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I wonder if you made a typo at Talk:Greasewood, saying "not ambiguous" rather than "ambiguous". Best wishes, Sminthopsis84 ( talk) 15:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
-- Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 16:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
-- Chamal T• C 17:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Kevmin, I tried to clean up the taxonomy on top of the Wiki Commons Category:Trilobita. Liné1 however, prefers to stick to the taxonomy as provided by PBDB, and to add my correction as an alternative. I find the result quite messy, but I do not want to make a fuss if other users think it is fine like it is right now. Could you please have a look? Thanks in advance -- Dwergenpaartje ( talk) 15:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The Cephalopod article before my edit said phylum, which is incorrect, so i changed it to class, which is correct. And besides, if it was a reversion of a vandalism, why is the new contents different from what it was before my edit? -- TiagoTiago ( talk) 20:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
-- Casliber ( talk · contribs) 08:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
The Dinosaur Barnstar | ||
For all your meticulous taxonomic work here and on Commons! FunkMonk ( talk) 09:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC) |
Kevmin, I was wondering whether you were planning to continue with this DYK review—someone has posted that another source has been added, as you requested—or if we should find a new reviewer at this point. Thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 03:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Moved to the Nothomyrmecia talk page here -- Kev min § 18:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
-- The DYK project ( nominate) 16:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Torreya clarnensis at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Prioryman ( talk) 08:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Torreya clarnensis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fusiform ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 19:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Kevmin, You seem to get rather concerned over what I wouldn't give second thought to. As for redirects, they are rather simple and innocuous, i.e. no biggy. So please stop making issue over such trivia. Also the Kingdom is Animalia as in [[Animalia]], not animal which can refer to any taxonomic rank, as in [[Animal|ia]]. The same goes for mollusc vs Mollusca and cephalopod vs Cephalopoda. I can't help it if the relevant pages are miss-titled. After all it is a taxobox, which implies taxa.
As for extra links in the text in Lytoceratinae, seems to me they are rather superfluous, since the included genera are already listed. None essential links makes reading more difficult. J.H.McDonnell ( talk) 14:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I didn't delete the article for copyright reasons, or for being invalid. As the deletion rationale stated: "created by sock of blocked user" (in this case, 'Torin O. Nice').
Once someone has been blocked from Wikipedia, they're not allowed to create new articles. It may be the best-written totally original article about the most notable topic, but they've lost the right to be the one who tells us about it. Their content is not allowed to be on Wikipedia; if we don't delete content that's submitted by socks of blocked users, what's the point of their having been blocked?
You're perfectly welcome to re-create the article from scratch. Here are the sources that were cited:
I hope this is enough? DS ( talk) 16:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lytoceratinae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oxfordian ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 17:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
-- Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
-- The DYK project ( nominate) 00:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Don't revert...just let the image sit (even if you wiki rule cruft disagree). This was a triumph of God or Nature or some majestic force.
TCO ( talk) 23:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Let it live...
-- Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
If you are talking about italic title, then I removed it simply because for me, it doesn't italicize anything.-- Mishae ( talk) 15:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I'm planning to write articles on Geology of the Pacific Ocean and Topography of the Pacific Ocean with my WP:RBN group. You probably have other things to do but is it possible you could help us write them? I've started the geology one, needs writing into prose from the lists with a decent overview. We need some real experts to assist with these as they're very important topics. After doing we'll write condensed summaries in the main article.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, would you mind me nominating Rhus rooseae for DYK? Thanks, Mat ty. 007 19:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
-- The DYK project ( nominate) 16:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Coryloides at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! NinaGreen ( talk) 15:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
With regard to your issue with the article's name, I entirely agree that it is the scientific name that should be used, and in this species that would be the genus name. This is not only sensible as regards a species with several differing vernacular names, but also a good general policy. However within "WikiProject Fishes" it is not the custom as far as I can see. If you have a look at this page you will see mention of a number of monotypic shark genera and clicking through to the individual species you will see they are all listed under common names. If you want to change the fish article naming policy you are welcome to try, but meanwhile, could you please give the DYK nomination of School shark a tick, otherwise it is likely to linger indefinitely on the nominations page. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 05:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
-- Crisco 1492 ( talk) 14:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
-- Crisco 1492 ( talk) 08:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
-- Crisco 1492 ( talk) 16:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
-- The DYK project ( nominate) 00:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
-- The DYK project ( nominate) 16:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
-- Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 16:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello Kevmin! I see you have edited a lot of ant-related articles. You may be interested in the recently created ant task force. Check out the task force's subpage and see if you're able to help out with any of the open tasks (or add new tasks). This list of ant-related open access may prove useful for expanding stubs and DYKs. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find any articles about fossil taxa but I can {{ ping}} you if I find any in the future. Cheers, jonkerz ♠ talk 21:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi again! I've left a reply on my talk page. Another thing -- I tried to get the subfamily parameter to show in the infoboxes on the Sphecomyrma and Zigrasimecia pages, but couldn't get it to work. It works on Sphecomyrminae, but not in the genera articles. The Automatic taxobox manual wasn't of much help (you probably need another manual of two just to understand the first manual). Can you take a look at it? jonkerz ♠ talk 20:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
The Ant Barnstar | ||
For your solid contributions to fossil ants – especially ants related to the subfamily
Sphecomyrminae of which half of the articles are now start-class or higher – you are hereby awarded the first Ant Barnstar ever. Keep up the good work! P.S. You may recognize the pictured ant ;) jonkerz ♠ talk 01:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC) |
Re. Haidoterminus: start-class low priority BUT, it's almost C-class and the priority can be increased to mid if we add an ant task force parameter to WP:INSECT's banner. Just some thoughts :) jonkerz ♠ talk 01:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Whoops, you're correct, there's probably not going to be too many sources around for a while. In single-sources articles, I tend to add additional references for things like the number of genera in the tribe, type species, etc to make the ref section look better, lol :) But that comes with additional maintenance, and every single word in the article is referenced anyway. If expanded, it will qualify for C-class even without other references.
I haven't had much time to edit the last week, but I will add a bunch of articles that have been laying on my HD for a while now; many of them stubs, but quite a few start-class articles as well which will bring us closer to the goal of 50 new expansions. jonkerz ♠ talk 08:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Haidoterminus at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! NinaGreen ( talk) 03:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Burmomyrma at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Soman ( talk) 04:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
-- The DYK project ( nominate) 16:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
-- The DYK project ( nominate) 08:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 16:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
-- The DYK project ( nominate) 00:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
-- The DYK project ( nominate) 00:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
-- The DYK project ( nominate) 08:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
-- The DYK project ( nominate) 00:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I have the following content, but I am unsure how to name it, whether it should be regarded a disambiguation page (probably not), whether to label it as a stub (also probably not), and given that Trilobites redirects to Trilobite perhaps Trilobites (genus) could be the right thing to do. I don't mind if you would upload such a page.
Trilobites is a synonym for a several trilobites, now assigned to other genera. [1]
Regards, Dwergenpaartje ( talk) 00:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RealityCzecher ( talk • contribs) 03:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 00:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Please check the DYK nomination. It's not a review, and only thirty seconds of editing will be needed — if any is needed at all. Nyttend ( talk) 13:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Kevmin, I'm sorry to see that the slave-making/trophobiosis DYK was rejected due to problems with my article. Apologies for that, I hope you can still use the article you wrote in another DYK. jonkerz ♠ talk 14:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Nikkimaria ( talk) 08:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
-- The DYK project ( nominate) 00:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
-- The DYK project ( nominate) 16:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
-- The DYK project ( nominate) 00:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
-- The DYK project ( nominate) 16:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
-- Materialscientist ( talk) 05:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
--
Callanecc (
talk •
contribs •
logs) 04:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
-- Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 15:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
-- Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 03:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
-- Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 14:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
-- Harrias talk 01:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Anonychomyrma constricta at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Cloudchased ( talk) 02:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
-- Harrias talk 12:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
-- Harrias talk 12:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Paleontology Barnstar | ||
I hereby award you, Kevmin, the paleontology barnstar for an exceptional series of DYK submissions on extinct ants and other insects.-- Gilderien Chat| List of good deeds 23:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC) |
Thanks!-- Kev min § 17:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
-- The DYK project ( nominate) 00:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
-- The DYK project ( nominate) 12:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
-- The DYK project ( nominate) 16:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
You might well be one of the most prolific paleoentomological writers out there. Abyssal ( talk) 18:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC) |
Please vet my edits and links in your interesting new aricle on this fossil formicid, lest I inadvertently introduce errors. Thanks.-- Wetman ( talk) 23:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I believe that the discussion here isn't really working. What I think we should do is post a summary of what we want to do in a new thread, so that we get the page watchers' attention, then initiate a RFC regarding the doing, or not doing, of QPQs for non self noms. What do you think? Best, Mat ty. 007 18:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello Kevmin, would you be interested in creating articles using the article: 'New Fossil Lepidoptera (Insecta: Amphiesmenoptera) from the Middle Jurassic Jiulongshan Formation of Northeastern China' [1]. It seems the whole article, including pictures is licenced under CC-BY. Since you seem to be interested in creating Fossil Insect articles, I was hoping you might want to pick this up. I have a lot on my to-do list so I wont be able to work on these for some time.. Cheers! Ruigeroeland ( talk) 14:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
The Writer's Barnstar | |
For your sustained work on fossil taxon, a fascinating area that you write so much on. Keep it up! :)
Acather96 ( click here to contact me) 14:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC) |
-- The DYK project ( nominate) 17:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thylacosmilus, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Catamarca, La Pampa and Entre Ríos ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually the guidance for what classifications are appropriate for a taxobox are not at [[:WP:TOL}}, where they are just referenced, but are at Template:Taxobox/doc#Classification, where it says: Taxoboxes should include all major ranks above the taxon described in the article, plus minor ranks that are important to understanding the classification of the taxon described in the article, or which are discussed in the article. Other minor ranks should be omitted. For the Hemiptera, the suborder is important in classification for two reasons, the first is the breakup of Homoptera (which reason alone should suffice for its inclusion), and the second reason is that the suborder is the current basis for the stub analysis in the English Wikipedia. Unless you seriously object, I will add the suborder back in at Triatoma dominicana, on the basis of the guideline. Replying here is fine. -- Bejnar ( talk) 04:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Kevmin, you know I create trilobite articles. Currently I have a little issue with User:Apokryltaros. He changes my entries by removing the link ( type) and adding a terms "|type_species=" and "|type_species_authority=". The guidance on taxoboxes says: "When the type species of a genus (or larger grouping) is known, [these terms] can be used." "can" is a rather unsatisfactory verb. He also links the original but no longer valid genus name with the type species. According to Apokryltaros the type species term must be used because it exists. To me however, this construction creates an unnecessary repetition of the exact same information, that I was giving in a different but much more compact way. I also feel that it is unhelpful and even confusing to link to the genus article that this type species is no longer assigned to. As you think the approach of Apokryltaros is to be preferred, I will follow that in future (peevishly, as it means I need to revisit a few thousand articles). I think in that case the guidance needs to be changed to "should". If not, perhaps we may somehow dissuade Apokryltaros. Curious to hear your view. Regards, Dwergenpaartje ( talk) 19:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
After taking a look at the Yunnanocephalus changes that were made, I agree with the move from |type_species= and |type_species_authority= to |bionomial= and |bionomial_authority=. This is the structuring that is most widely used in the monotypic taxon articles I have seen, and is what i use in the articles I create. On the other hand, I do not agree with the linking of Ptychoparia, as I feel it creates confusion among lay readers and would be much better addressed in the article prose. See Agroecomyrmex for an example of how I would have handled the situation.-- Kev min § 05:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Orlady ( talk) 05:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Kevmin, I'm in a nomenclatoric confusion. Pentacrinites gives as generic authority Goldfuss, 1831, and (Blumenbach, 1804) as the author of the type species P. fossilis. So far so good, but in my search for the original combination, I come across this publication. This provides both the combination Pentacrinites fossilis! and a description. However, it is in German and not in Latin. As far as I remember, before a certain date, publication in other languages than Latin renders the description invalid, and this may have been the reason for Goldfuss to publish the name again. In this case, the authority should actually read: "Blumenbach, 1804 ex. Goldfuss, 1831". I am unaware of any guideline for Wikipedia for such a situation. Perhaps you could have a look at this issue. Thank you in advance and kind regards, - Dwergenpaartje ( talk) 15:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Aphaenogaster avita at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — Rod talk 16:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
On 3 March 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Aphaenogaster avita, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the ant Aphaenogaster avita was described from a fossil found in 1969? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Aphaenogaster avita. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), 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. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 00:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
-- Casliber ( talk · contribs) 16:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
-- The DYK project ( nominate) 00:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
-- The DYK project ( nominate) 00:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arostropsis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antennae ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
-- Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 00:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
-- Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 08:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
-- Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
-- Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 08:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
-- Casliber ( talk · contribs) 08:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
-- The DYK project ( nominate) 08:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2007 in paleontology, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Oxfordian and Michael J. Ryan ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:06, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
-- Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
-- Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 16:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
-- Yngvadottir ( talk) 00:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I have approved your article Mastotermes electromexicus for DYK. The third sentence in the Description section needs attention as it does not make sense at the moment.
Thank you for reviewing various articles written by me over the last few months. With the WikiCup drawing to a conclusion shortly I will no longer feel it necessary to submit so many articles for DYK in the future. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 05:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
-- Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 00:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Great, you managed to obtain cuteness on the main page. It would have been much cuter if it had been accurate, rather than falling into the bulk of recent DYKs with inaccuracy paramount.
To say it was "calico," is incorrect. It is "P. calico," and, no, you don't get to make up new meanings for binomial nomenclature. Saying it "was calico," implies it had some calico description, but does not mean that its specific epithet was "calico," and if it was, what is its specific epithet now?
Bravo. Cute. - Fjozk ( talk) 01:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
-- Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 16:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
-- The DYK project ( nominate) 00:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Automatic Strikeout 16:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
The 200 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal | ||
Oh, it seems like its only 150 articles ago since I gave you your award for 50. There used to be an advert on UK TV where the aunt says "ooo! you've got an 'ology". That reminded me of your talk page. :-) Its always the pictures that inspire me with your numerous articles on extinct insects and stuff. Well done. Victuallers ( talk) 20:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC) |
-- Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 16:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
-- Yngvadottir ( talk) 16:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
-- Casliber ( talk · contribs) 16:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Please do not undo the changes I'm doing in the pages I created. Sergio Kaminski ( talk)
The pages that you changed was that I edited. There are still some problems of classification of these plants. I'm still trying to solve these problems because the text of the original authors are contradictory. Sergio Kaminski ( talk) 09:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
The information you added was, for the most part, already covered in the articles though. Given you additions to the Samara (fruit) page that i reverted, I have reservations about the accuracy of ht information you are translating.-- Kev min § 11:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
-- The DYK project ( nominate) 16:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
J.H.McDonnell is once again "simplifying references" in Bivalvia. I notice that you have advised him in the past not to do this. Cheers. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 14:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
-- Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 00:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
-- Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 16:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 16:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Acer ivanofense at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! GregorB ( talk) 22:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Acer traini at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Rosiestep ( talk) 02:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
-- Gatoclass ( talk) 12:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
--Gatoclass 00:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
The Bivalve Barnstar | ||
This spiny Spondylus Barnstar is awarded to you Kevmin, in recognition of all your 2012 work on the subject of bivalve mollusks as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Bivalves, including many articles on fossil bivalves. All of your efforts are much appreciated! Invertzoo ( talk) 18:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC) |
Hello! Your submission of Orontium wolfei at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Rosiestep ( talk) 01:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
-- KTC ( talk) 08:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi! You've recently reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Carmenelectra shechisme. I've slightly changed the hook you approved. Do you object? Surtsicna ( talk) 03:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
-- Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 08:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hymenaea mexicana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lamina ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 00:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
-- Nyttend ( talk · contribs) 00:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
A few months ago, you participated in a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Did you know about Gibraltar-related DYKs on the Main Page. I am proposing that the temporary restrictions on such DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012, should be lifted and have set out a case for doing so at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs. If you have a view on this, please comment at that page. Prioryman ( talk) 21:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I wonder if you made a typo at Talk:Greasewood, saying "not ambiguous" rather than "ambiguous". Best wishes, Sminthopsis84 ( talk) 15:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
-- Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 16:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
-- Chamal T• C 17:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Kevmin, I tried to clean up the taxonomy on top of the Wiki Commons Category:Trilobita. Liné1 however, prefers to stick to the taxonomy as provided by PBDB, and to add my correction as an alternative. I find the result quite messy, but I do not want to make a fuss if other users think it is fine like it is right now. Could you please have a look? Thanks in advance -- Dwergenpaartje ( talk) 15:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The Cephalopod article before my edit said phylum, which is incorrect, so i changed it to class, which is correct. And besides, if it was a reversion of a vandalism, why is the new contents different from what it was before my edit? -- TiagoTiago ( talk) 20:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
-- Casliber ( talk · contribs) 08:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
The Dinosaur Barnstar | ||
For all your meticulous taxonomic work here and on Commons! FunkMonk ( talk) 09:50, 6 April 2013 (UTC) |
Kevmin, I was wondering whether you were planning to continue with this DYK review—someone has posted that another source has been added, as you requested—or if we should find a new reviewer at this point. Thanks. BlueMoonset ( talk) 03:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Moved to the Nothomyrmecia talk page here -- Kev min § 18:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
-- The DYK project ( nominate) 16:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Torreya clarnensis at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Prioryman ( talk) 08:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Torreya clarnensis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fusiform ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 19:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Kevmin, You seem to get rather concerned over what I wouldn't give second thought to. As for redirects, they are rather simple and innocuous, i.e. no biggy. So please stop making issue over such trivia. Also the Kingdom is Animalia as in [[Animalia]], not animal which can refer to any taxonomic rank, as in [[Animal|ia]]. The same goes for mollusc vs Mollusca and cephalopod vs Cephalopoda. I can't help it if the relevant pages are miss-titled. After all it is a taxobox, which implies taxa.
As for extra links in the text in Lytoceratinae, seems to me they are rather superfluous, since the included genera are already listed. None essential links makes reading more difficult. J.H.McDonnell ( talk) 14:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I didn't delete the article for copyright reasons, or for being invalid. As the deletion rationale stated: "created by sock of blocked user" (in this case, 'Torin O. Nice').
Once someone has been blocked from Wikipedia, they're not allowed to create new articles. It may be the best-written totally original article about the most notable topic, but they've lost the right to be the one who tells us about it. Their content is not allowed to be on Wikipedia; if we don't delete content that's submitted by socks of blocked users, what's the point of their having been blocked?
You're perfectly welcome to re-create the article from scratch. Here are the sources that were cited:
I hope this is enough? DS ( talk) 16:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lytoceratinae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oxfordian ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 17:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
-- Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
-- The DYK project ( nominate) 00:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Don't revert...just let the image sit (even if you wiki rule cruft disagree). This was a triumph of God or Nature or some majestic force.
TCO ( talk) 23:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Let it live...
-- Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
If you are talking about italic title, then I removed it simply because for me, it doesn't italicize anything.-- Mishae ( talk) 15:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I'm planning to write articles on Geology of the Pacific Ocean and Topography of the Pacific Ocean with my WP:RBN group. You probably have other things to do but is it possible you could help us write them? I've started the geology one, needs writing into prose from the lists with a decent overview. We need some real experts to assist with these as they're very important topics. After doing we'll write condensed summaries in the main article.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, would you mind me nominating Rhus rooseae for DYK? Thanks, Mat ty. 007 19:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
-- The DYK project ( nominate) 16:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Coryloides at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! NinaGreen ( talk) 15:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
With regard to your issue with the article's name, I entirely agree that it is the scientific name that should be used, and in this species that would be the genus name. This is not only sensible as regards a species with several differing vernacular names, but also a good general policy. However within "WikiProject Fishes" it is not the custom as far as I can see. If you have a look at this page you will see mention of a number of monotypic shark genera and clicking through to the individual species you will see they are all listed under common names. If you want to change the fish article naming policy you are welcome to try, but meanwhile, could you please give the DYK nomination of School shark a tick, otherwise it is likely to linger indefinitely on the nominations page. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 05:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
-- Crisco 1492 ( talk) 14:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
-- Crisco 1492 ( talk) 08:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
-- Crisco 1492 ( talk) 16:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
-- The DYK project ( nominate) 00:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
-- The DYK project ( nominate) 16:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
-- Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 16:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello Kevmin! I see you have edited a lot of ant-related articles. You may be interested in the recently created ant task force. Check out the task force's subpage and see if you're able to help out with any of the open tasks (or add new tasks). This list of ant-related open access may prove useful for expanding stubs and DYKs. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find any articles about fossil taxa but I can {{ ping}} you if I find any in the future. Cheers, jonkerz ♠ talk 21:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi again! I've left a reply on my talk page. Another thing -- I tried to get the subfamily parameter to show in the infoboxes on the Sphecomyrma and Zigrasimecia pages, but couldn't get it to work. It works on Sphecomyrminae, but not in the genera articles. The Automatic taxobox manual wasn't of much help (you probably need another manual of two just to understand the first manual). Can you take a look at it? jonkerz ♠ talk 20:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
The Ant Barnstar | ||
For your solid contributions to fossil ants – especially ants related to the subfamily
Sphecomyrminae of which half of the articles are now start-class or higher – you are hereby awarded the first Ant Barnstar ever. Keep up the good work! P.S. You may recognize the pictured ant ;) jonkerz ♠ talk 01:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC) |
Re. Haidoterminus: start-class low priority BUT, it's almost C-class and the priority can be increased to mid if we add an ant task force parameter to WP:INSECT's banner. Just some thoughts :) jonkerz ♠ talk 01:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Whoops, you're correct, there's probably not going to be too many sources around for a while. In single-sources articles, I tend to add additional references for things like the number of genera in the tribe, type species, etc to make the ref section look better, lol :) But that comes with additional maintenance, and every single word in the article is referenced anyway. If expanded, it will qualify for C-class even without other references.
I haven't had much time to edit the last week, but I will add a bunch of articles that have been laying on my HD for a while now; many of them stubs, but quite a few start-class articles as well which will bring us closer to the goal of 50 new expansions. jonkerz ♠ talk 08:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Haidoterminus at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! NinaGreen ( talk) 03:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Burmomyrma at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Soman ( talk) 04:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
-- The DYK project ( nominate) 16:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
-- The DYK project ( nominate) 08:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 16:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
-- The DYK project ( nominate) 00:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
-- The DYK project ( nominate) 00:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
-- The DYK project ( nominate) 08:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
-- The DYK project ( nominate) 00:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I have the following content, but I am unsure how to name it, whether it should be regarded a disambiguation page (probably not), whether to label it as a stub (also probably not), and given that Trilobites redirects to Trilobite perhaps Trilobites (genus) could be the right thing to do. I don't mind if you would upload such a page.
Trilobites is a synonym for a several trilobites, now assigned to other genera. [1]
Regards, Dwergenpaartje ( talk) 00:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RealityCzecher ( talk • contribs) 03:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
— Crisco 1492 ( talk) 00:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Please check the DYK nomination. It's not a review, and only thirty seconds of editing will be needed — if any is needed at all. Nyttend ( talk) 13:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Kevmin, I'm sorry to see that the slave-making/trophobiosis DYK was rejected due to problems with my article. Apologies for that, I hope you can still use the article you wrote in another DYK. jonkerz ♠ talk 14:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Nikkimaria ( talk) 08:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
-- The DYK project ( nominate) 00:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
-- The DYK project ( nominate) 16:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
-- The DYK project ( nominate) 00:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
-- The DYK project ( nominate) 16:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
-- Materialscientist ( talk) 05:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
--
Callanecc (
talk •
contribs •
logs) 04:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
-- Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 15:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
-- Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 03:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
-- Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 14:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
-- Harrias talk 01:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Anonychomyrma constricta at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Cloudchased ( talk) 02:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
-- Harrias talk 12:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
-- Harrias talk 12:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Paleontology Barnstar | ||
I hereby award you, Kevmin, the paleontology barnstar for an exceptional series of DYK submissions on extinct ants and other insects.-- Gilderien Chat| List of good deeds 23:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC) |
Thanks!-- Kev min § 17:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
-- The DYK project ( nominate) 00:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
-- The DYK project ( nominate) 12:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
-- The DYK project ( nominate) 16:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
You might well be one of the most prolific paleoentomological writers out there. Abyssal ( talk) 18:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC) |
Please vet my edits and links in your interesting new aricle on this fossil formicid, lest I inadvertently introduce errors. Thanks.-- Wetman ( talk) 23:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I believe that the discussion here isn't really working. What I think we should do is post a summary of what we want to do in a new thread, so that we get the page watchers' attention, then initiate a RFC regarding the doing, or not doing, of QPQs for non self noms. What do you think? Best, Mat ty. 007 18:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello Kevmin, would you be interested in creating articles using the article: 'New Fossil Lepidoptera (Insecta: Amphiesmenoptera) from the Middle Jurassic Jiulongshan Formation of Northeastern China' [1]. It seems the whole article, including pictures is licenced under CC-BY. Since you seem to be interested in creating Fossil Insect articles, I was hoping you might want to pick this up. I have a lot on my to-do list so I wont be able to work on these for some time.. Cheers! Ruigeroeland ( talk) 14:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
The Writer's Barnstar | |
For your sustained work on fossil taxon, a fascinating area that you write so much on. Keep it up! :)
Acather96 ( click here to contact me) 14:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC) |
-- The DYK project ( nominate) 17:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thylacosmilus, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Catamarca, La Pampa and Entre Ríos ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually the guidance for what classifications are appropriate for a taxobox are not at [[:WP:TOL}}, where they are just referenced, but are at Template:Taxobox/doc#Classification, where it says: Taxoboxes should include all major ranks above the taxon described in the article, plus minor ranks that are important to understanding the classification of the taxon described in the article, or which are discussed in the article. Other minor ranks should be omitted. For the Hemiptera, the suborder is important in classification for two reasons, the first is the breakup of Homoptera (which reason alone should suffice for its inclusion), and the second reason is that the suborder is the current basis for the stub analysis in the English Wikipedia. Unless you seriously object, I will add the suborder back in at Triatoma dominicana, on the basis of the guideline. Replying here is fine. -- Bejnar ( talk) 04:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Kevmin, you know I create trilobite articles. Currently I have a little issue with User:Apokryltaros. He changes my entries by removing the link ( type) and adding a terms "|type_species=" and "|type_species_authority=". The guidance on taxoboxes says: "When the type species of a genus (or larger grouping) is known, [these terms] can be used." "can" is a rather unsatisfactory verb. He also links the original but no longer valid genus name with the type species. According to Apokryltaros the type species term must be used because it exists. To me however, this construction creates an unnecessary repetition of the exact same information, that I was giving in a different but much more compact way. I also feel that it is unhelpful and even confusing to link to the genus article that this type species is no longer assigned to. As you think the approach of Apokryltaros is to be preferred, I will follow that in future (peevishly, as it means I need to revisit a few thousand articles). I think in that case the guidance needs to be changed to "should". If not, perhaps we may somehow dissuade Apokryltaros. Curious to hear your view. Regards, Dwergenpaartje ( talk) 19:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
After taking a look at the Yunnanocephalus changes that were made, I agree with the move from |type_species= and |type_species_authority= to |bionomial= and |bionomial_authority=. This is the structuring that is most widely used in the monotypic taxon articles I have seen, and is what i use in the articles I create. On the other hand, I do not agree with the linking of Ptychoparia, as I feel it creates confusion among lay readers and would be much better addressed in the article prose. See Agroecomyrmex for an example of how I would have handled the situation.-- Kev min § 05:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Orlady ( talk) 05:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Kevmin, I'm in a nomenclatoric confusion. Pentacrinites gives as generic authority Goldfuss, 1831, and (Blumenbach, 1804) as the author of the type species P. fossilis. So far so good, but in my search for the original combination, I come across this publication. This provides both the combination Pentacrinites fossilis! and a description. However, it is in German and not in Latin. As far as I remember, before a certain date, publication in other languages than Latin renders the description invalid, and this may have been the reason for Goldfuss to publish the name again. In this case, the authority should actually read: "Blumenbach, 1804 ex. Goldfuss, 1831". I am unaware of any guideline for Wikipedia for such a situation. Perhaps you could have a look at this issue. Thank you in advance and kind regards, - Dwergenpaartje ( talk) 15:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Aphaenogaster avita at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — Rod talk 16:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
On 3 March 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Aphaenogaster avita, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the ant Aphaenogaster avita was described from a fossil found in 1969? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Aphaenogaster avita. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), 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. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 00:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)