DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between February 5, 2012 and April 14, 2012.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarising the section you are replying to if necessary.
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
The original Barnstar Typhoonwikihelper ( talk) 07:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC) |
![]() | On 11 February 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tricarina, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the clawless lobster Tricarina is known from a single fossil, obtained from an oil well 3,852 m (12,638 ft) below ground in western Iran? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tricarina.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Orlady ( talk) 08:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Wildlife of Seychelles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Land crab ( 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) 11:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Editor's Barnstar |
Appreciate your work on Crabs of the British Isles. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC) |
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.. Since you had some involvement with the All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). JayJay Talk to me 22:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() | On 14 February 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dyspanopeus sayi, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the crab Dyspanopeus sayi may have lived in the Venetian Lagoon for 15 years before it was discovered? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dyspanopeus sayi.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 00:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Dear Stemonitis,
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name
HERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Obar -- Jaobar ( talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Young June Sah -- Yjune.sah ( talk) 20:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to argue with you, but I would like to know the reason behind the renaming of this species:
In "view history", it says that the reason was because: "scientific name used frequently", but is not the common name is used as well? Like, shouldn't the page be called by its common name? You don't call beetle Coleoptera, you call it Beetle, right? Then why not this? Many thanks, if the explanation would be provided in detail! Another question: Should I rename the species from this: Bombus hortorum to this: Garden Bumblebee? link is here Same link that this article Bombus terrestris should be called Earth bumblebee.-- Mishae ( talk) 21:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Empty citation (
help) on my earlier articles, but since some sites don't carry the name of the author, or the last time it was visited, I avoid those. Maybe its not ethical, but it saves me some hassle. I realy want to help the Wikipedia project, but sometimes my edits could be viewed as vandalism. See, sometimes I think that the stuff that I am doing is helpful, but some people might consider it to be unhelpful. If any of my edits will give a sign of vandalism (or already are), I would like to apologize for it. Yeah, almost forgot, English is my second language, so gramatical errors could, and will happen. However, I can try to minimize them. Read my user page to see the signs for my gramatical errors.--
Mishae (
talk)
15:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() | On 17 February 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Polybius henslowii, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Polybius henslowii has more swimming legs than other swimming crabs? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Polybius henslowii.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Orlady ( talk) 08:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. In your recent article edits, 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) 20:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Stemonitis, for the major cleanup and categorization of
Achaeus japonicus. I wanted to fix the categories and bare URLs last night, but wasn't sure how.
A few questions about your edits:
(1) Why remove the two other images? Is there a convention about number of images compared to the amount of text? I'd like to put back at least the image with bubble coral, as it shows a common aspect of the animal's environment.
(2) I understand switching the redirect so that the article appears under the scientific name, but why remove the mention of Humann and Deloach's suggestion the Orangutan crab should be classified as a species of Oncinopus? Are they not considered a reliable source? (Neither is a zoologist by training, I think, but they do have probably more hours than anyone else photographing and describing tropical marine life, as well as an impressive-looking panel of scientific consultants.)
(3) Speaking of Humann and Deloach, why delete the title of their book, Reef Creature Identification: Tropical Pacific?
(4) Although two of the web sources hyphenate orang-utan, my dictionary (Random House Unabridged 2d ed) does not, and my sense is most writers in English also do not. I'd like to change back to orangutan in the text.
Thanks again for working on the article, and let me know what you think on these points.
Jason Marks (
talk)
05:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, great, thanks for the explanation. Jason Marks ( talk) 04:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks very much for creating the Taxobox and tidying up my first ever wikipedia page on Halicampus DrRickZT ( talk) 11:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)DrRickZT
Hi Stermontis - I forgot to log in before editing the Halicampus page (from home) - I read that registering ould hide my IP address, but evidently it does not do it retrospectively - any ideas how to get the IP address removed from the log? One consequence of this is that I now have two user identities... lesson learned! cheers DrRickZTTwo ( talk) 21:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC) DrRickZTtwo
OK - thanks, much appreciated! Do you mind if I ask you questions about how to do things from time to time? I'm a reasonably bright biologist (work for Cambridge University) but have Asperger's and often find other people's simple systems incomprehensible (e.g. taxoboxes!) DrRickZTTwo ( talk) 21:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)DrRickZTtwo
I'm still looking for refs that will confirm that Parribacus antarcticus is commercially fished. I've found a number of sites that will supply me with live sculptured slipper lobsters for my aquarium, or fresh P. antarcticus to my banquet table. Strewth, there's even a taxidermy-ised carapace on e-bay. Shirt58 ( talk) 12:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello Stemonitis! I saw your recent edit to the tangle nets article, removing the category curstaceans. I included that category because I have read in several references that interesting species of crusaceans, in particular rare crab species, have been acquired using tangle nets in the Philippines. The reference cites, Tangle Net Fishing, an Indiginous Method Used in Balicasag Island, Central Philippines Peter K. L. Ng, Jose C. E. Mendoza, Marivene R. Manuel-Santos, The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology (2009) Supplement No. 20: 39-46. http://rmbr.nus.edu.sg/rbz/biblio/s20/s20rbz039-046.pdf, supports this. I have also read about interesting crab species being acquired using tangle nets in other references, but decided NOT to string cite. If after reviewing the matter you deem the category inappropriate leave it off. I just think that it is interesting and a new sampling method for crustacean species that deserves exploring. Take care. Shellnut ( talk) 22:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I took this image at the Talsari beach. The crabs dig holes in sand. What confuses me is the type of the crabs. Here is a close-up image. Are they fiddler crabs or ghost crabs? Since you are biologist, I thought you could properly identify the crabs. Thank you. -- SupernovaExplosion Talk 08:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I have placed a third warning on User talk:Randy102. I think that this user's editing history shows a subtle form of disruptive editing, which because of its repetitive nature, in my view now constitutes vandalism. I don't remember how to nominate someone for an editing block, but I think this user now qualifies. Since the page Portunus pelagicus has been a repetitive target in which the disruptive edits appear to be the most subtle, I am leaving this message for you, as the one who has reverted the edits, to bring it to your notice. -- Robert.Allen ( talk) 05:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I made a bit of a mess when first expanding Lybia edmondsoni because I inadvertently copied and included material from my wrong sandbox, though I soon corrected the error. I have changed back the wikilink Triactis producta to Triactis producta because Triactis is a monotypic genus. I named the article I wrote about the species "Triactis" because I thought it was policy to do this. Also, I need the link because I am doing a joint DYK nomination for the two articles. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 07:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Teamwork Barnstar |
Thank you! DrRickZTTwo ( talk) 17:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC) |
I have been doing some work on the Yucca article. Yucca recurvifolia is now Yucca gloriosa var. tristis according to the World Checklist of Selected Plant Families (Y. g. var. recurvifolia according to GRIN). So I moved "Yucca recurvifolia" to "Yucca gloriosa var. tristis" and did some re-writing. What I can't get right is the taxobox ("varietas" doesn't seem to work). As you seem something of an expert on botanical taxoboxes, can you sort it out for me? Thanks. Peter coxhead ( talk) 23:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
variety=
, not varietas=
. Don't ask me why. I think the taxobox should be fixed now, and I have made a few other changes that should be uncontroversial. --
Stemonitis (
talk)
07:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)| unranked_variety = {{{unranked_varietas|{{{unranked_variety|}}}}}} | unranked_variety_authority = {{{unranked_varietas_authority|{{{unranked_variety_authority|}}}}}} | variety = {{{varietas|{{{variety|}}}}}} | variety_authority = {{{varietas_authority|{{{variety_authority|}}}}}}
Hi. In your recent article edits, 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) 10:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Please check my message over at User talk:Nonenmac so the three of us can get on the same page about the formatting of the Christenhusz reference. Choess ( talk) 15:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I've rewritten the lead on the article about four days ago, you probably missed it (I imagine your watchlist is gigantic, heh). Anyway, let me know what you think of it and what else is missing. No hurry though.-- OBSIDIAN† SOUL 17:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
DYK review note: Thank you for your review of Template:Did you know nominations/Cardiff town walls. There are still some issues concerning this nomination that may need to be clarified; please respond on that page as soon as possible. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I see you graded the Misszhouia article in 2007. I've added quite some contents. Perhaps you would like to regrade it. Regards, Dwergenpaartje ( talk) 13:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello Stemonites,
You judged the Morocconites page before. Now that I have updated that page, you might want to reevaluate. Thinks, Dwergenpaartje ( talk) 19:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. In your recent article edits, 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) 11:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello! The description of Amphion reynaudii was evidently given by Milne-Edwards in 1832. There must have been a typo in trustful WoRMS. If you do not trust date on the cover of Annales de la Societe Entomologique de France still thinking that Milne-Edwards made the description after the work was published, see Heegaard (1969) or Williamson (1973). Synonymy is also mentioned in these sources. And the synonym you've deleted was explicitly referenced. I'm getting anger. Mithril ( talk) 11:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I was looking through the WikiProject Paleontology Page, encountering a list of stub-articles. To my surprise, it did not contain a subcategory Trilobite stubs, nor listed any trilobite article. If we want more editors to be active on trilobites, it may be helpfull to mend this omission. It is probably simple if you know what to do. What do you think? Dwergenpaartje ( talk) 12:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Sir - please stop your disruptive editing, your threatening and your bullying manor. Please desist from leaving derisory comments about my edits.
My edits are in line WP:TX; - there is considerable president! it seems that it is only you that seems to have an issue with this. whereas most editors make good use of taxobox features. you alone do not constitute consensus-- Simuliid ( talk) 22:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Hallo! I'm greatly pleased with you kindly reverting my edits again and again. I had no expirience of fighting for every word for several years! I just wonder if you don't know that Geoffrey Watkins Smith was " a scientist who studies crustaceans or was otherwise involved in carcinology (the science of crustaceans)". Mithril ( talk) 13:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Strychnos nux-vomica, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Critical Care ( 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) 11:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:List of rock formations in the United Kingdom regarding the scope of the list and a proposal. The list currently contains:
Sgurr nan Conbhairean. --20:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Would be so kind and have a look at this page: Dialectica scalariella. User Lotje proposed to link red links to wikispecies and asked me what I think of this. Although it seems a reasonable idea, I am not completely sure about it. If someone makes an article on a red linked plant, this would not automatically link to the insect it is mentioned in anymore. What do you think? Ruigeroeland ( talk) 14:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
First there was a new article. Then there was only the dab page again? Then the dab page disappeared? Now both have come back again? Any idea what's going on? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 18:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
That article is part of the Monmouthpedia initiative - and, before you decide to revert all the image galleries in all the new articles that have been added as a result of that initiative, I suggest you discuss the policy implications with its coordinator, User:Mrjohncummings, and the Wikimedia person responsible, User:Victuallers. Extraordinary initiatives result in slightly different interpretations of policy. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 20:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Stemonitis, I have reverted your edit here. The super family is not getting displayed on the genus pages without the parameter (example Turbonilla). — Ganeshk ( talk) 04:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
display_parents
setting, not always_display
. If, as your edit summary suggests, the gastropods project somehow favours this, and I see no immediate evidence of that, then it should change its recommendations, as its
local consensus does not override the wider guidelines. This is a straightforward abuse of the always_display
parameter. --
Stemonitis (
talk)
07:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
always_display
to true
, you are forcing taxoboxes of taxa at lower ranks to violate WP:TX by including inappropriate minor-rank taxa. Whether or not there are any such lower-rank taxa at the moment is irrelevant. Using always_display
is the wrong tool. --
Stemonitis (
talk)
12:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
A related issue is the advice here about how to include clades. This method completely messes up attempts to build taxonomy navigation tools. Peter coxhead ( talk) 12:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I had to use the always_display override for the clades. Example: Template:Taxonomy/Panpulmonata. Are you okay with that? — Ganeshk ( talk) 13:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Not trying to edit war at all, but I did add back the image of the tick, and just added a caption that is appropriate. The image is very good quality, and the detail isn't duplicated in any of the other images on the page, making it worthwhile to include in the article in that "legs" section. If you disagree, we can always go to the talk page and get a larger consensus. Dennis Brown ( talk) 13:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. On the disambiguation page for caudal you removed the claim that the term is applied exclusively to vertebrates. I am not an expert on the subject and took this claim from the anterior and posterior section of the anatomical terms article, where it says that Another term for posterior is caudal [...] — a term that strictly applies only to vertebrates [...]. (emphasis added). Maybe you could look into this. -- Shinryuu ( talk) 23:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello Stemonitis, I noticed the latest Zookeys issue deals with Isopoda, a group I though you were mainly active in? Zookeys articles (including images) are all cc-3.0, but you probably know that. Anyway, just thought to point it out to you. Cheers! Ruigeroeland ( talk) 12:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Lepidoptera for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. - Mabeenot ( talk) 05:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello, could you to work on this article, please? Biodiversity of New Caledonia. It is a very important archaic species group in Paleobotany and evolution. 85.251.99.49 ( talk) 08:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't have strong feelings about it, but I guess that strictly speaking the current placement of images in Hyacinthoides non-scripta isn't in accord with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Location in that text is sandwiched between the pair of images that compare the two species and the taxobox. I often end up putting horizontal sets of images between text blocks, which I don't really like, to avoid sandwiching. I'm not really sure what the best solution is. Peter coxhead ( talk) 19:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm interested in this move, because as part of working on Cactus I get spun off into linked articles about cactus species and genera; quite a bit of sorting, categorizing, etc. is needed. There are several monospecific genera which are handled in different ways, often incorrectly at the species name – incorrectly that is according to the WP:PLANTS naming policy. One example seems to fall into the Danae racemosa category, namely Mila caespitosa which has a redirect at Mila (genus). I would have been inclined to reverse these, making Mila caespitosa a redirect to the content at Mila (genus), as I have for other monospecific genera where the genus name doesn't need disambiguating. Your view appears to be that we shouldn't do this when the genus name needs disambiguating. I see that you then put categories on the articles in this way: the species article has "Category:FAMILY" (or whatever is appropriate) and the genus redirect has "Category:FAMILY genera". What do you see as the advantages of doing it this way round? Peter coxhead ( talk) 14:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Cheers for the move.
benzband (
talk)
15:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
You might like to follow up moving "Bumblebee orchid" by moving Bee Orchid to "Ophrys apifera". Apart from general WP:PLANTS policy, "bee orchid" is a name local to Europe; in other parts of the world quite different orchids are known by this name, as I discovered myself in Malaysia. It's also used for the genus. Peter coxhead ( talk) 14:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
H. non-scripta English Bluebell (Scilla non-scripta, Endymion nutans) Almost too well-known to need a description and some people will object to its being included here, for it can be an awful weed in some gardens. It grows to 35cm in height with a rather one-sided lax raceme of blue, pink or white long bell-shaped flowers. The raceme bends over at the apex. a point of difference between it and H. hispanica, and in addition the anthers are creamy-white. The segments do not spread quite as much as those of H. hispanica, giving a more tubular-shaped flower. Occurs wild in western Europe, mainly in woodlands, where it flowers in April. In gardens it will hybridize with H. hispanica producing a confusing range of intermediates. It is best grown in semi-wild situations where it can be left to naturalize, since it is far too vigorous for inclusion in a rock garden or in peat beds, where it can take over.
Would you be interested in acquiring some papers on the fossil fish Gebraylichthys and various fossil gastropods in exchange for acquiring some papers on placoderms for me?-- Mr Fink ( talk) 15:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Can you please stop removing the columns? It is almost vandalism, creates too much whitespace, makes the article is harder to read and looks ugly. Use whatever code you like, but be aware much columns code (I think there are 4 versions by now or more) is still somewhat experimental. This is why I use the old one; it does not mess up the layout.
Dysmorodrepanis (
talk)
04:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
OK, forget that. But you should use Template:Multicol. I know it's not the newest columns template, but a lot of readers do not have the newest browser either, and the "div col" does not work for some 30% of users (all who have an old Internet Explorer, which is most of the people with an outdated Windows, which is likely the bulk of our Third World userbase.) Dysmorodrepanis ( talk) 05:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
If I wished to be awkward (as per Roman pottery) I could point out that 4 of the 5 citations at Scilloideae were in my preferred {{ Citation}} style, and you could have converted the odd one to this. :-) Peter coxhead ( talk) 22:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
ref=
parameters of {{
cite}} templates, and then link to them manually, as I did at
Palinurus charlestoni, for instance. I'm not criticising what you've done at all – I should make that clear – just explaining that there are other options. --
Stemonitis (
talk)
12:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Just a note to say that I'm reviewing Hyacinthoides non-scripta, and that since I'm still a bit {{ busy}} in real life, you should feel no constraint whatsoever in pinging my talk page if I'm failing to get back to you promptly about any question you have.
I have every expectation of this article passing easily. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
There is a present for you on my user page. 512bits ( talk) 14:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Just to let you know I have unprotected paella, which you protected in September. The original parties to the edit war appear to have gone away, rather than resolving their difference of opinion, but it seemed to be a fairly isolated incident for the article so probably best to let others edit it. Regards, The Land ( talk) 20:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Me again! I'm a tad confused about the name of Hoplandothrips - I got it from a relatively recently published book and there are a few other sources using the same name. The original description though ( doi: 10.1017/S0007485300020940) of one species uses Hoplandrothrips, as well as later publications ( doi: 10.1080/09670877509411482 [11]) . Can you work out what's happened? Was the 'r' removed at some point when the genus was renamed, or did someone make a typo which has then been copied by others? Cheers! SmartSE ( talk) 22:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Pluchea indica, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Viper ( 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) 15:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I did get agreement at WT:PLANTS before updating the taxonomy of the Asparagales to APG III, including agreement to use the automated taxobox system, at least for those families where APG III has sunk earlier well-established families, such as the now broadly defined Asparagaceae and Amaryllidaceae. It's known that some specialists in these families remain unhappy and have been working to re-establish what are now subfamilies as families. Hyacinthaceae/Scillaceae, for example, continue to be used by some "bulb people"; Alan Meerow, who is an Amaryllidaceae specialist, is unhappy about the new family. I know you're not a fan of the automated taxobox system, but there was a reason why Allium triquetrum used {{ Speciesbox}}: it will be easier to convert some of the subfamilies back to families if this happens. Peter coxhead ( talk) 17:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Could you please delete Neottia for me? Sinking Listera into Neottia seems to be well accepted now (Stace and the BSBI in the UK, the World Checklist of Selected Plant Families, etc.), annoying though it is for those of us used to the old names. I've changed all the species articles but can't finish the move of the genus article. Thanks. Peter coxhead ( talk) 18:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Quite interesting that you picked slime mold as your user name. 512bits ( talk) 14:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
It's a subtle difference but it seems to me that neither the original wording nor your change re the occurrence of Hyacinthoides × massartiana are quite correct. There are several possibilities, including: (1) the hybrid may naturally occur where both parents naturally grow; (2) it may occur where one parent naturally grows and the other is introduced (the British Isles generally); or (3) it may grow where neither parent grows and the hybrid has been introduced (some parts of the British Isles where only garden forms are found). I think the original wording may have been trying to distinguish (2) from (1): the hybrid is "introduced" in the sense that one of its parents is "introduced". Peter coxhead ( talk) 07:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Can you provide guidelines to validate your persistent removal of this picture from the article Pachygrapsus marmoratus? I have read through all Image use guidelines, and I have been unable to locate anything that will back up your reasons for removal. Can you provide a valid guideline? Dusty 777 16:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Stemonitis, you recently added an Unreferenced Stub template to San Matías Gulf. I'm not entirely sure that this was necessary due to the use of the Coord template in the article. I've started a discussion about this here. Perhaps you'd like to comment. Regards, Bazonka ( talk) 17:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at
Pachygrapsus marmoratus shows that you are currently engaged in an
edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being
blocked from editing—especially if you violate the
three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three
reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's
talk page to work toward making a version that represents
consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant
noticeboard or seek
dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary
page protection. —
raeky
t
10:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC) [redacted under
WP:DTTR
Following a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lepidoptera/Archive5#Protoploea_apatela, on 20 June 2011, without any notification and without my knowledge, you changed a redirect of The Magpie to Magpie (disambiguation) without adding the target, even though the use of the term is unique to the painting. [12] I'm curious why you would make such an edit when two editors ( [13], [14]) have made the point that "The Magpie" is not the name of the butterfly. Your edit essentially removed a useful redirect to The Magpie (Monet), which is the only topic on Wikipedia that goes by that name, and failed to add either the butterfly or the painting to the dab page. Did you forget? Viriditas ( talk) 02:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Contrary to your assertions, the moth Abraxas grossularia is known by the name "The Magpie", even if other names are used more commonly (and UKMoths doesn't include the definite article in most cases; cf. here). The term "The Magpie" is very ambiguous, especially given the likelihood of readers using definite articles where they shouldn't. I think most people searching for "The Magpie" are actually after Pica pica, not the painting, and so redirecting The Magpie to a disambiguation page is by far the best approach. -- Stemonitis ( talk) 05:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I see now that I was the only other participant in the discussion you refer to, and that I warned you then that there are moths called "The Magpie". How can you take disagreement from the only other participant as a licence to do something? The only reason I didn't respond to your last comment was because you made it nearly a week later, after I would have stopped watching the page. I'm undoing your edits pending discussion. -- Stemonitis ( talk) 05:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and a third reason that I had forgotten. We can't have "The Magpie" redirecting to "The Magpie (Monet)". If the painting is the primary meaning, it should be at "The Magpie", not redirected from there. That may be a possible outcome, but it would need to go through WP:RM first. -- Stemonitis ( talk) 05:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between February 5, 2012 and April 14, 2012.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarising the section you are replying to if necessary.
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
The original Barnstar Typhoonwikihelper ( talk) 07:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC) |
![]() | On 11 February 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tricarina, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the clawless lobster Tricarina is known from a single fossil, obtained from an oil well 3,852 m (12,638 ft) below ground in western Iran? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tricarina.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Orlady ( talk) 08:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Wildlife of Seychelles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Land crab ( 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) 11:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Editor's Barnstar |
Appreciate your work on Crabs of the British Isles. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC) |
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.. Since you had some involvement with the All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). JayJay Talk to me 22:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() | On 14 February 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dyspanopeus sayi, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the crab Dyspanopeus sayi may have lived in the Venetian Lagoon for 15 years before it was discovered? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dyspanopeus sayi.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 00:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Dear Stemonitis,
My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name
HERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Obar -- Jaobar ( talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Young June Sah -- Yjune.sah ( talk) 20:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to argue with you, but I would like to know the reason behind the renaming of this species:
In "view history", it says that the reason was because: "scientific name used frequently", but is not the common name is used as well? Like, shouldn't the page be called by its common name? You don't call beetle Coleoptera, you call it Beetle, right? Then why not this? Many thanks, if the explanation would be provided in detail! Another question: Should I rename the species from this: Bombus hortorum to this: Garden Bumblebee? link is here Same link that this article Bombus terrestris should be called Earth bumblebee.-- Mishae ( talk) 21:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Empty citation (
help) on my earlier articles, but since some sites don't carry the name of the author, or the last time it was visited, I avoid those. Maybe its not ethical, but it saves me some hassle. I realy want to help the Wikipedia project, but sometimes my edits could be viewed as vandalism. See, sometimes I think that the stuff that I am doing is helpful, but some people might consider it to be unhelpful. If any of my edits will give a sign of vandalism (or already are), I would like to apologize for it. Yeah, almost forgot, English is my second language, so gramatical errors could, and will happen. However, I can try to minimize them. Read my user page to see the signs for my gramatical errors.--
Mishae (
talk)
15:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() | On 17 February 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Polybius henslowii, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Polybius henslowii has more swimming legs than other swimming crabs? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Polybius henslowii.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Orlady ( talk) 08:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. In your recent article edits, 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) 20:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Stemonitis, for the major cleanup and categorization of
Achaeus japonicus. I wanted to fix the categories and bare URLs last night, but wasn't sure how.
A few questions about your edits:
(1) Why remove the two other images? Is there a convention about number of images compared to the amount of text? I'd like to put back at least the image with bubble coral, as it shows a common aspect of the animal's environment.
(2) I understand switching the redirect so that the article appears under the scientific name, but why remove the mention of Humann and Deloach's suggestion the Orangutan crab should be classified as a species of Oncinopus? Are they not considered a reliable source? (Neither is a zoologist by training, I think, but they do have probably more hours than anyone else photographing and describing tropical marine life, as well as an impressive-looking panel of scientific consultants.)
(3) Speaking of Humann and Deloach, why delete the title of their book, Reef Creature Identification: Tropical Pacific?
(4) Although two of the web sources hyphenate orang-utan, my dictionary (Random House Unabridged 2d ed) does not, and my sense is most writers in English also do not. I'd like to change back to orangutan in the text.
Thanks again for working on the article, and let me know what you think on these points.
Jason Marks (
talk)
05:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, great, thanks for the explanation. Jason Marks ( talk) 04:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks very much for creating the Taxobox and tidying up my first ever wikipedia page on Halicampus DrRickZT ( talk) 11:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)DrRickZT
Hi Stermontis - I forgot to log in before editing the Halicampus page (from home) - I read that registering ould hide my IP address, but evidently it does not do it retrospectively - any ideas how to get the IP address removed from the log? One consequence of this is that I now have two user identities... lesson learned! cheers DrRickZTTwo ( talk) 21:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC) DrRickZTtwo
OK - thanks, much appreciated! Do you mind if I ask you questions about how to do things from time to time? I'm a reasonably bright biologist (work for Cambridge University) but have Asperger's and often find other people's simple systems incomprehensible (e.g. taxoboxes!) DrRickZTTwo ( talk) 21:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)DrRickZTtwo
I'm still looking for refs that will confirm that Parribacus antarcticus is commercially fished. I've found a number of sites that will supply me with live sculptured slipper lobsters for my aquarium, or fresh P. antarcticus to my banquet table. Strewth, there's even a taxidermy-ised carapace on e-bay. Shirt58 ( talk) 12:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello Stemonitis! I saw your recent edit to the tangle nets article, removing the category curstaceans. I included that category because I have read in several references that interesting species of crusaceans, in particular rare crab species, have been acquired using tangle nets in the Philippines. The reference cites, Tangle Net Fishing, an Indiginous Method Used in Balicasag Island, Central Philippines Peter K. L. Ng, Jose C. E. Mendoza, Marivene R. Manuel-Santos, The Raffles Bulletin of Zoology (2009) Supplement No. 20: 39-46. http://rmbr.nus.edu.sg/rbz/biblio/s20/s20rbz039-046.pdf, supports this. I have also read about interesting crab species being acquired using tangle nets in other references, but decided NOT to string cite. If after reviewing the matter you deem the category inappropriate leave it off. I just think that it is interesting and a new sampling method for crustacean species that deserves exploring. Take care. Shellnut ( talk) 22:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I took this image at the Talsari beach. The crabs dig holes in sand. What confuses me is the type of the crabs. Here is a close-up image. Are they fiddler crabs or ghost crabs? Since you are biologist, I thought you could properly identify the crabs. Thank you. -- SupernovaExplosion Talk 08:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I have placed a third warning on User talk:Randy102. I think that this user's editing history shows a subtle form of disruptive editing, which because of its repetitive nature, in my view now constitutes vandalism. I don't remember how to nominate someone for an editing block, but I think this user now qualifies. Since the page Portunus pelagicus has been a repetitive target in which the disruptive edits appear to be the most subtle, I am leaving this message for you, as the one who has reverted the edits, to bring it to your notice. -- Robert.Allen ( talk) 05:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I made a bit of a mess when first expanding Lybia edmondsoni because I inadvertently copied and included material from my wrong sandbox, though I soon corrected the error. I have changed back the wikilink Triactis producta to Triactis producta because Triactis is a monotypic genus. I named the article I wrote about the species "Triactis" because I thought it was policy to do this. Also, I need the link because I am doing a joint DYK nomination for the two articles. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 07:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Teamwork Barnstar |
Thank you! DrRickZTTwo ( talk) 17:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC) |
I have been doing some work on the Yucca article. Yucca recurvifolia is now Yucca gloriosa var. tristis according to the World Checklist of Selected Plant Families (Y. g. var. recurvifolia according to GRIN). So I moved "Yucca recurvifolia" to "Yucca gloriosa var. tristis" and did some re-writing. What I can't get right is the taxobox ("varietas" doesn't seem to work). As you seem something of an expert on botanical taxoboxes, can you sort it out for me? Thanks. Peter coxhead ( talk) 23:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
variety=
, not varietas=
. Don't ask me why. I think the taxobox should be fixed now, and I have made a few other changes that should be uncontroversial. --
Stemonitis (
talk)
07:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)| unranked_variety = {{{unranked_varietas|{{{unranked_variety|}}}}}} | unranked_variety_authority = {{{unranked_varietas_authority|{{{unranked_variety_authority|}}}}}} | variety = {{{varietas|{{{variety|}}}}}} | variety_authority = {{{varietas_authority|{{{variety_authority|}}}}}}
Hi. In your recent article edits, 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) 10:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Please check my message over at User talk:Nonenmac so the three of us can get on the same page about the formatting of the Christenhusz reference. Choess ( talk) 15:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I've rewritten the lead on the article about four days ago, you probably missed it (I imagine your watchlist is gigantic, heh). Anyway, let me know what you think of it and what else is missing. No hurry though.-- OBSIDIAN† SOUL 17:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
DYK review note: Thank you for your review of Template:Did you know nominations/Cardiff town walls. There are still some issues concerning this nomination that may need to be clarified; please respond on that page as soon as possible. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I see you graded the Misszhouia article in 2007. I've added quite some contents. Perhaps you would like to regrade it. Regards, Dwergenpaartje ( talk) 13:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello Stemonites,
You judged the Morocconites page before. Now that I have updated that page, you might want to reevaluate. Thinks, Dwergenpaartje ( talk) 19:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. In your recent article edits, 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) 11:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello! The description of Amphion reynaudii was evidently given by Milne-Edwards in 1832. There must have been a typo in trustful WoRMS. If you do not trust date on the cover of Annales de la Societe Entomologique de France still thinking that Milne-Edwards made the description after the work was published, see Heegaard (1969) or Williamson (1973). Synonymy is also mentioned in these sources. And the synonym you've deleted was explicitly referenced. I'm getting anger. Mithril ( talk) 11:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I was looking through the WikiProject Paleontology Page, encountering a list of stub-articles. To my surprise, it did not contain a subcategory Trilobite stubs, nor listed any trilobite article. If we want more editors to be active on trilobites, it may be helpfull to mend this omission. It is probably simple if you know what to do. What do you think? Dwergenpaartje ( talk) 12:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Sir - please stop your disruptive editing, your threatening and your bullying manor. Please desist from leaving derisory comments about my edits.
My edits are in line WP:TX; - there is considerable president! it seems that it is only you that seems to have an issue with this. whereas most editors make good use of taxobox features. you alone do not constitute consensus-- Simuliid ( talk) 22:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Hallo! I'm greatly pleased with you kindly reverting my edits again and again. I had no expirience of fighting for every word for several years! I just wonder if you don't know that Geoffrey Watkins Smith was " a scientist who studies crustaceans or was otherwise involved in carcinology (the science of crustaceans)". Mithril ( talk) 13:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Strychnos nux-vomica, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Critical Care ( 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) 11:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:List of rock formations in the United Kingdom regarding the scope of the list and a proposal. The list currently contains:
Sgurr nan Conbhairean. --20:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Would be so kind and have a look at this page: Dialectica scalariella. User Lotje proposed to link red links to wikispecies and asked me what I think of this. Although it seems a reasonable idea, I am not completely sure about it. If someone makes an article on a red linked plant, this would not automatically link to the insect it is mentioned in anymore. What do you think? Ruigeroeland ( talk) 14:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
First there was a new article. Then there was only the dab page again? Then the dab page disappeared? Now both have come back again? Any idea what's going on? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 18:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
That article is part of the Monmouthpedia initiative - and, before you decide to revert all the image galleries in all the new articles that have been added as a result of that initiative, I suggest you discuss the policy implications with its coordinator, User:Mrjohncummings, and the Wikimedia person responsible, User:Victuallers. Extraordinary initiatives result in slightly different interpretations of policy. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 20:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Stemonitis, I have reverted your edit here. The super family is not getting displayed on the genus pages without the parameter (example Turbonilla). — Ganeshk ( talk) 04:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
display_parents
setting, not always_display
. If, as your edit summary suggests, the gastropods project somehow favours this, and I see no immediate evidence of that, then it should change its recommendations, as its
local consensus does not override the wider guidelines. This is a straightforward abuse of the always_display
parameter. --
Stemonitis (
talk)
07:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
always_display
to true
, you are forcing taxoboxes of taxa at lower ranks to violate WP:TX by including inappropriate minor-rank taxa. Whether or not there are any such lower-rank taxa at the moment is irrelevant. Using always_display
is the wrong tool. --
Stemonitis (
talk)
12:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
A related issue is the advice here about how to include clades. This method completely messes up attempts to build taxonomy navigation tools. Peter coxhead ( talk) 12:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I had to use the always_display override for the clades. Example: Template:Taxonomy/Panpulmonata. Are you okay with that? — Ganeshk ( talk) 13:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Not trying to edit war at all, but I did add back the image of the tick, and just added a caption that is appropriate. The image is very good quality, and the detail isn't duplicated in any of the other images on the page, making it worthwhile to include in the article in that "legs" section. If you disagree, we can always go to the talk page and get a larger consensus. Dennis Brown ( talk) 13:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. On the disambiguation page for caudal you removed the claim that the term is applied exclusively to vertebrates. I am not an expert on the subject and took this claim from the anterior and posterior section of the anatomical terms article, where it says that Another term for posterior is caudal [...] — a term that strictly applies only to vertebrates [...]. (emphasis added). Maybe you could look into this. -- Shinryuu ( talk) 23:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello Stemonitis, I noticed the latest Zookeys issue deals with Isopoda, a group I though you were mainly active in? Zookeys articles (including images) are all cc-3.0, but you probably know that. Anyway, just thought to point it out to you. Cheers! Ruigeroeland ( talk) 12:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Lepidoptera for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. - Mabeenot ( talk) 05:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello, could you to work on this article, please? Biodiversity of New Caledonia. It is a very important archaic species group in Paleobotany and evolution. 85.251.99.49 ( talk) 08:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't have strong feelings about it, but I guess that strictly speaking the current placement of images in Hyacinthoides non-scripta isn't in accord with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Location in that text is sandwiched between the pair of images that compare the two species and the taxobox. I often end up putting horizontal sets of images between text blocks, which I don't really like, to avoid sandwiching. I'm not really sure what the best solution is. Peter coxhead ( talk) 19:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm interested in this move, because as part of working on Cactus I get spun off into linked articles about cactus species and genera; quite a bit of sorting, categorizing, etc. is needed. There are several monospecific genera which are handled in different ways, often incorrectly at the species name – incorrectly that is according to the WP:PLANTS naming policy. One example seems to fall into the Danae racemosa category, namely Mila caespitosa which has a redirect at Mila (genus). I would have been inclined to reverse these, making Mila caespitosa a redirect to the content at Mila (genus), as I have for other monospecific genera where the genus name doesn't need disambiguating. Your view appears to be that we shouldn't do this when the genus name needs disambiguating. I see that you then put categories on the articles in this way: the species article has "Category:FAMILY" (or whatever is appropriate) and the genus redirect has "Category:FAMILY genera". What do you see as the advantages of doing it this way round? Peter coxhead ( talk) 14:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Cheers for the move.
benzband (
talk)
15:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
You might like to follow up moving "Bumblebee orchid" by moving Bee Orchid to "Ophrys apifera". Apart from general WP:PLANTS policy, "bee orchid" is a name local to Europe; in other parts of the world quite different orchids are known by this name, as I discovered myself in Malaysia. It's also used for the genus. Peter coxhead ( talk) 14:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
H. non-scripta English Bluebell (Scilla non-scripta, Endymion nutans) Almost too well-known to need a description and some people will object to its being included here, for it can be an awful weed in some gardens. It grows to 35cm in height with a rather one-sided lax raceme of blue, pink or white long bell-shaped flowers. The raceme bends over at the apex. a point of difference between it and H. hispanica, and in addition the anthers are creamy-white. The segments do not spread quite as much as those of H. hispanica, giving a more tubular-shaped flower. Occurs wild in western Europe, mainly in woodlands, where it flowers in April. In gardens it will hybridize with H. hispanica producing a confusing range of intermediates. It is best grown in semi-wild situations where it can be left to naturalize, since it is far too vigorous for inclusion in a rock garden or in peat beds, where it can take over.
Would you be interested in acquiring some papers on the fossil fish Gebraylichthys and various fossil gastropods in exchange for acquiring some papers on placoderms for me?-- Mr Fink ( talk) 15:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Can you please stop removing the columns? It is almost vandalism, creates too much whitespace, makes the article is harder to read and looks ugly. Use whatever code you like, but be aware much columns code (I think there are 4 versions by now or more) is still somewhat experimental. This is why I use the old one; it does not mess up the layout.
Dysmorodrepanis (
talk)
04:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
OK, forget that. But you should use Template:Multicol. I know it's not the newest columns template, but a lot of readers do not have the newest browser either, and the "div col" does not work for some 30% of users (all who have an old Internet Explorer, which is most of the people with an outdated Windows, which is likely the bulk of our Third World userbase.) Dysmorodrepanis ( talk) 05:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
If I wished to be awkward (as per Roman pottery) I could point out that 4 of the 5 citations at Scilloideae were in my preferred {{ Citation}} style, and you could have converted the odd one to this. :-) Peter coxhead ( talk) 22:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
ref=
parameters of {{
cite}} templates, and then link to them manually, as I did at
Palinurus charlestoni, for instance. I'm not criticising what you've done at all – I should make that clear – just explaining that there are other options. --
Stemonitis (
talk)
12:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Just a note to say that I'm reviewing Hyacinthoides non-scripta, and that since I'm still a bit {{ busy}} in real life, you should feel no constraint whatsoever in pinging my talk page if I'm failing to get back to you promptly about any question you have.
I have every expectation of this article passing easily. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
There is a present for you on my user page. 512bits ( talk) 14:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Just to let you know I have unprotected paella, which you protected in September. The original parties to the edit war appear to have gone away, rather than resolving their difference of opinion, but it seemed to be a fairly isolated incident for the article so probably best to let others edit it. Regards, The Land ( talk) 20:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Me again! I'm a tad confused about the name of Hoplandothrips - I got it from a relatively recently published book and there are a few other sources using the same name. The original description though ( doi: 10.1017/S0007485300020940) of one species uses Hoplandrothrips, as well as later publications ( doi: 10.1080/09670877509411482 [11]) . Can you work out what's happened? Was the 'r' removed at some point when the genus was renamed, or did someone make a typo which has then been copied by others? Cheers! SmartSE ( talk) 22:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Pluchea indica, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Viper ( 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) 15:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I did get agreement at WT:PLANTS before updating the taxonomy of the Asparagales to APG III, including agreement to use the automated taxobox system, at least for those families where APG III has sunk earlier well-established families, such as the now broadly defined Asparagaceae and Amaryllidaceae. It's known that some specialists in these families remain unhappy and have been working to re-establish what are now subfamilies as families. Hyacinthaceae/Scillaceae, for example, continue to be used by some "bulb people"; Alan Meerow, who is an Amaryllidaceae specialist, is unhappy about the new family. I know you're not a fan of the automated taxobox system, but there was a reason why Allium triquetrum used {{ Speciesbox}}: it will be easier to convert some of the subfamilies back to families if this happens. Peter coxhead ( talk) 17:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Could you please delete Neottia for me? Sinking Listera into Neottia seems to be well accepted now (Stace and the BSBI in the UK, the World Checklist of Selected Plant Families, etc.), annoying though it is for those of us used to the old names. I've changed all the species articles but can't finish the move of the genus article. Thanks. Peter coxhead ( talk) 18:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Quite interesting that you picked slime mold as your user name. 512bits ( talk) 14:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
It's a subtle difference but it seems to me that neither the original wording nor your change re the occurrence of Hyacinthoides × massartiana are quite correct. There are several possibilities, including: (1) the hybrid may naturally occur where both parents naturally grow; (2) it may occur where one parent naturally grows and the other is introduced (the British Isles generally); or (3) it may grow where neither parent grows and the hybrid has been introduced (some parts of the British Isles where only garden forms are found). I think the original wording may have been trying to distinguish (2) from (1): the hybrid is "introduced" in the sense that one of its parents is "introduced". Peter coxhead ( talk) 07:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Can you provide guidelines to validate your persistent removal of this picture from the article Pachygrapsus marmoratus? I have read through all Image use guidelines, and I have been unable to locate anything that will back up your reasons for removal. Can you provide a valid guideline? Dusty 777 16:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Stemonitis, you recently added an Unreferenced Stub template to San Matías Gulf. I'm not entirely sure that this was necessary due to the use of the Coord template in the article. I've started a discussion about this here. Perhaps you'd like to comment. Regards, Bazonka ( talk) 17:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at
Pachygrapsus marmoratus shows that you are currently engaged in an
edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being
blocked from editing—especially if you violate the
three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three
reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's
talk page to work toward making a version that represents
consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant
noticeboard or seek
dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary
page protection. —
raeky
t
10:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC) [redacted under
WP:DTTR
Following a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lepidoptera/Archive5#Protoploea_apatela, on 20 June 2011, without any notification and without my knowledge, you changed a redirect of The Magpie to Magpie (disambiguation) without adding the target, even though the use of the term is unique to the painting. [12] I'm curious why you would make such an edit when two editors ( [13], [14]) have made the point that "The Magpie" is not the name of the butterfly. Your edit essentially removed a useful redirect to The Magpie (Monet), which is the only topic on Wikipedia that goes by that name, and failed to add either the butterfly or the painting to the dab page. Did you forget? Viriditas ( talk) 02:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Contrary to your assertions, the moth Abraxas grossularia is known by the name "The Magpie", even if other names are used more commonly (and UKMoths doesn't include the definite article in most cases; cf. here). The term "The Magpie" is very ambiguous, especially given the likelihood of readers using definite articles where they shouldn't. I think most people searching for "The Magpie" are actually after Pica pica, not the painting, and so redirecting The Magpie to a disambiguation page is by far the best approach. -- Stemonitis ( talk) 05:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I see now that I was the only other participant in the discussion you refer to, and that I warned you then that there are moths called "The Magpie". How can you take disagreement from the only other participant as a licence to do something? The only reason I didn't respond to your last comment was because you made it nearly a week later, after I would have stopped watching the page. I'm undoing your edits pending discussion. -- Stemonitis ( talk) 05:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and a third reason that I had forgotten. We can't have "The Magpie" redirecting to "The Magpie (Monet)". If the painting is the primary meaning, it should be at "The Magpie", not redirected from there. That may be a possible outcome, but it would need to go through WP:RM first. -- Stemonitis ( talk) 05:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)