Hi YorkshireExpat! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Happy editing! Loopy30 ( talk) 21:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello YorkshireExpat,
Thanks for your interest in Gastrodia. The newly described (November 2020) is not (yet?) in the World Checklist of Selected Plant Families, [1] unlike the other species in the list on that page. (The question "What are the criteria for inclusion in the list above" would be better asked on the article's Talk Page.) Gderrin ( talk) 06:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
References
Firstly, it's better not to move taxonomy templates if they are synonyms; instead use |same_as=
– see
Wikipedia:Automated taxobox system/taxonomy templates#same as. Secondly, Diplogasterida and Diplogasteromorpha can't be synonyms, because Diplogasterida is an order (see
here, p. 73), and Diplogasteromorpha is an infraorder. So when you redirected
Template:Taxonomy/Diplogasterida to
Template:Taxonomy/Diplogasteromorpha, you created inconsistent ranks in the taxonomy templates, which causes them to be put into an error-tracking category. It seems that WoRMS and the 2011 article linked above have different taxonomies. I have restored
Template:Taxonomy/Diplogasterida, but it and
Template:Taxonomy/Diplogasterina which uses it should probably be deleted, since they aren't used by any articles' taxoboxes.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
20:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
|taxon=Polysporangiophytes/Plantae
to make "Kingdom: Plantae" appear in the taxobox. So you can set up more than one taxonomy template for any taxon by using its name followed by / and a qualifier. There's a brief explanation at
Wikipedia:Automated taxobox system/advanced taxonomy#Taxon variants.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
20:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Hymedesmia Parpal Dumplin, from its old location at User:YorkshireExpat/sandbox. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. Iflaq (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider
.Thanks again, and happy editing!
Iflaq (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)GBIF's synonym Cumingia is based on The Interim Register of Marine and Nonmarine Genera if you look here. I don't rate IRMNG as a very reliable source for plants. Australian journal papers, like this one, all seem to agree with PoWO. Peter coxhead ( talk) 08:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Platypoda, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Des Vallee ( talk) 06:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Do you have a reason to be deleting such as at Template:Taxonomy/Incertae sedis/Parapoxvirus? If so, please give the reason in the edit summary. If performing several similar edits, it would be better to post a link to a discussion providing the background. It can be hard to find errors in articles in advance, but using "what links here" and checking a couple of articles after the change would avoid problems. Johnuniq ( talk) 00:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Hallo, When you posted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Taxonomic_species_terms you started off with @YorkshireExpat, which is likely to confuse readers as it's the way to alert yourself to the fact that you've posted there. You might like to edit that out?
For info, in case you don'tknow, the "ping" (or "@" or various other ways) only works if you include it in a posting and sign the post in the same edit - you can't retrospectively add it to a post unless you sign it again. That's a pitfall many of us come across before we learn. There's always something new to learn about editing Wikipedia. Pam D 22:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for editing the articles I created on the pygmy snapper and the bluestripe snapper. I prefer to use taxon in Speciesboxes, other people prefer genus + species, as far as I can see, both have the same effect so it is not necessary to change them when editing articles. In fish articles I think taxon is preferred. Quetzal1964 ( talk) 18:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
Great additions of taxobox and taxonomy templates. Sun Creator( talk) 14:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC) |
Thanks for the edits. The lead is sopposedly a summary of the article and I was advised that you may, or may not, put citations into the lead as long as you are consistent. I prefer not to have citations in the lead, what is being stated there should be cited elsewhere in the article. Although I stated in the lead that this was the only species in its genus, I think I left it implied in the taxonomy paragraph. I will delete the ref you put in the lead and amend Taxonomy. Quetzal1964 ( talk) 20:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for adding references to the Automatic Taxobox templates. I will try to use INaturalist from now on. I was not aware of how helpful it was. Sorry if I am creating work for you. Scorpions13256 ( talk) 23:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
A pleasure to collaborate with you! Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 17:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC) |
Thanks for your comment on the talk page, to make your view clear it is normal practice to preface your comment with Support or Oppose. As I proposed the change I think my support is taken as understood. Quetzal1964 ( talk) 16:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
There are quite a few other "preload" taxonomy templates in addition to the one you edited ( Template:Taxonomy/preload/?). They date to the creation and early development of the automatic taxobox system around 2010–2012. All break up occurrences of "subst" using includeonly tags. So either all need changing or none do. As I don't fully understand why Smith609 wrote them this way, I've not changed this aspect. It's difficult to test your edit without creating unnecessary taxonomy templates. So it should probably be reverted. Peter coxhead ( talk) 21:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi I reverted your edit on the Taxonomy Template for Paranotothenia. For taxa above the genus level the WikiProject:Fishes follows the 5th Edition of Fishes of the World, FotW does not recognise subfamilies in the family Nototheniidae. I have added a note to the article Nototheniidae and each genus article has or will have a similar note. I hope you understand my reasoning. Quetzal1964 ( talk) 09:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
I also changed the taxobox to a species box, but you'll see that what you instead get is that the plant is from a genus of crabs, which can't be right... Draco phyllum 07:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Under the ICZN, species names that are Latin/Greek declinable adjectives must be spelled in a way that corresponds to the gender of the genus into which they are placed; Euscelis is a feminine genus, so the correct spelling is "incisa" rather than "incisus". The only names in the genus that end in "-us" are those which are not Latin or Greek adjectives. Dyanega ( talk) 15:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect "Latromirus". The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 2#"Latromirus" until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. TJRC ( talk) 04:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tetralonia malvae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pfaffenhofen. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 06:07, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi there - can I ask why you prodded this article? -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 15:15, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Why do you have such an insignificant article watchlisted– or at least following it so closely. I don't mind, just interested. Draco phyllum 19:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
Great work tidying up recently created articles thank you. Theroadislong ( talk) 16:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC) |
Hey, Thanks for your help on the Palyeidodon article. I submitted an article about Pisanodon to Wikipedia and would like your help with cleaning it up after it gets accepted. I also don't know how to properly edit a Speciesbox so if you could give me any help with that as well that would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HmmmSimon ( talk • contribs) 20:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
The article got denied for using sources without significant coverage of the species even though they were some of the same websites that I cited on the Palyeidodon article. I removed the only reference that was different (even though it was about the species) and will try to resubmit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HmmmSimon ( talk • contribs) 20:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider
.Thanks again, and happy editing!
CNMall41 ( talk) 00:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Hello, I saw that my recent edits of the "Coelophysis" kayentakatae page were reverted, can you please explain my mistakes in the edit. I cited my sources and "Coelophysis" kayentakatae's article doesn't fit the recent changes in Coelophysid classification. Note that "C." kayentakatae hasn't been placed in Coelophysis since 2004. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Augustios Paleo ( talk • contribs) 16:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
That makes more sense, thank you for the info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Augustios Paleo ( talk • contribs) 17:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider
.Thanks again, and happy editing!
Theroadislong ( talk) 17:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Hello, why exactly does marking incertae sedis as not extinct cause a problem? Super Ψ Dro 21:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Template:Taxonomy/Pelomedusoidea has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 23:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks... most embarassing. I guess the syllable "cypho" didn't roll off the mind's tongue :p -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 15:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, if you haven't, please see my comments at Talk:Teclea carpopunctifera re the moves back and forth. Peter coxhead ( talk) 16:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi! Happy to move that for you, but you should have been able to move it yourself – the redirect that was in the way had only one revision. For the future, if you'd like also to be able to move pages over a redirect that has more than one revision and so can't be overwritten, I'd be happy to add page mover to your user rights – just say the word! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 08:56, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello, YorkshireExpat. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.
Please take a moment to review
Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially
the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow
post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect
is used. This can be done using
Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to
secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status
can be revoked.
Useful links:
If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Primefac ( talk) 18:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Apologies but you have misunderstood WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA
“the article (if there is no common name) should go under the scientific name of lowest rank, but no lower than the monotypic genus. Redirects should be created from the other ranks to the actual article.”
It’s not something I personally agree with but it is the accepted policy, apparently it would cause confusion in fossil Taxa if you had the article at species level (!). Please revert your edits to this article to comply with WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA.
Thanks Quetzal1964 ( talk) 09:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for moving ambiguous monotypic genera to binomial titles. Please check the categories after moving. "Genus" categories such as Category:Crambidae genera and Category:Monotypic moth genera belong with the genus title, not the binomial. "Taxa named by" and "Species described in year" categories may also need to changed following a move. {{ R from monotypic taxon}}/{{ R to monotypic taxon}} usually will need to be changed. I've checked and updated the categories for all your moves over the last week.
Regarding Rabbit's purse, "Use common name to avoid dab as monotypic" isn't a position that has consensus among plant editors. I know Quetzal1964 uses the rationale with fish, but fish make more use of common names as titles than plants do, and monotypic fish genera have never been titled very consistently. "Rabbit's purse" is less commonly used than "Harfordia macroptera"; this plant doesn't occur in any English speaking country, and doesn't have a commonly used vernacular name. WP:COMMONNAME does not say to use vernacular name titles instead of scientific name titles if a vernacular name simply EXISTS. The title should be "the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)". For many organisms, scientific names are more commonly used than vernacular names. Plantdrew ( talk) 19:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Why does Tropheryma need to be "Tropheryma"? Neither https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC119894/ or https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6113628/ use the " in the name. If there is some reason it needs the " then it should explained and sourced in the article. I looked but couldn't find any other articles in Category:Micrococcales that used the ". Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:35, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
not validly published, which is why I suspect it has the quotes. That said, I've had discussions before about the correct form for disputed names so it's all up for reasonable debate, and following the main body of the literature is something that comes up often as an argument. YorkshireExpat ( talk) 07:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited "Tropheryma", you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Buchnera.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello.
Can you revert the article United Kingdom weather records and check it? The article has been messed up with so many and unsourced edits.
Yours sincerely, 31.200.12.242 ( talk) 16:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I see that you prefer linked species or genus lists to the traditional bulleted lists. I understand these were intended for use within taxoboxes. In the main body these lists often include common names. How do you deal with common names?
For example
as opposed to
As you can see the common name is in small text.
I prefer the Species lists as they are easier to type up but, as far as I can see, their utility seems limited in the main body of articles. Quetzal1964 ( talk) 15:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Special:Diff/1111006851 - FlightTime ( open channel) 21:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
{{short description|Largest living species of dolphin}}
to {{Short description|Largest living species of dolphin}}
These templates are not case sensitive. -
FlightTime (
open channel)
18:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't know how I managed to undo the genus list, all I was changing was some wording in distribution as Southern Ocean species had been described since Anderson and Fedorov 2004. Quetzal1964 ( talk) 17:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi YorkshireExpat: I see you moved the Stromatella (lichen) article to Stromatella bermudana yesterday and made the former article a redirect. However, according to the consensus reached at WP:TOL "for a monotypic genus (one that contains a single species), the genus name should be used, as it is included in the binomial nomenclature, and the genus title is more concise than the binomial." So I think it should have stayed at the former name, with the species name as a redirect. Do you not agree? MeegsC ( talk) 10:46, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
The exception is when a monotypic genus name needs to be disambiguated. The article should then be at the species, since this is a more natural form of disambiguation.YorkshireExpat ( talk) 10:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Happy Holidays | ||
Hello, I wish you the very best during the holidays. And I hope you have a very happy 2023! Bruxton ( talk) 01:54, 26 December 2022 (UTC) |
Hi there. I noticed you moved the page for the subfamily Pireninae to the family page Pirenidae (presumably following the recent updates to Pteromalidae). However, Pireninae is now also the name of a subfamily within Pirenidae. Should the Pireninae page be restored (and updated to reflect that it's now within Pirenidae instead of Pteromalidae) and a new page created for Pirenidae? Note that I updated the subfamilies and genera on the moved page before I noticed this issue. I'm not sure of the best way to hanlde this. Cheers. Friesen5000 ( talk) 16:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
I want to reiterate here what I said on the move request: it was really bad form to preemptively add a warning template to my request, since it connotes to other editors that some sort of vote-stacking has occurred there, when it clearly has not. You made your points passionately...and repeatedly. Other editors don't seem to be persuaded so far; maybe others will come along who are convinced. But slapping a warning label into a move request that didn't need one feels like you're trying to work the refs a bit.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it wasn't malicious (we all make mistakes). But it was bad form nonetheless. Woko Sapien ( talk) 20:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Dear YorkshireExpat. I've made a further change to the Template:Taxonomy/Sabaconidae which i wonder if can be a compromise solution. As you seem to have disliked my intent to actually link to the taxonomic article - which i feel is critical as that IS the taxonomic reference, but unwieldy if formulated the way i had altered it, then how about this other way now there instead, with direction to Catalogue of Life? The outline is here Template:Catalogue of Life. For me, iNaturalist is frequently out of date or even worse errors and confusions with the taxonomy of many groups, contains errors that go unmanaged for an age. In last months, i've been rebuilding much of the iNaturalist taxonomy for this wider taxon group Opiliones, which includes Sabaconidae/Sabacon that now since then i'm aiming to reflect on various Wiki pages. But my point however, if even though for certain Opiliones the iNaturalist taxonomy is now updated, i really do no think it's a good idea to be treating iNaturalist as the "goto reference" for taxonomy. It's not a taxonomic site and as such it does not cross reference to the taxonomic literature and actual taxonomic focused databases. Instead, Catalogue of Life does explicitly do exactly such things - citing the key literature and linking to the key taxonomic database where can find further taxonomic resources. Hence, I'd greatly prefer the various taxa templates to link to Catalogue of Life instead. For example the one for Sabacon linked with 643LM could instead link to this https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/browse?taxonKey=643LM Sjl197 ( talk) 20:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
|parent=
.Hi, see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Taxonomy/Xiphioidei. You need to change all the links before putting a taxonomy template in the unnecessary taxonomy templates category. I've made a temporary fix using a same_as taxonomy template, because your edit caused many consequential errors. Peter coxhead ( talk) 11:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I just wonder what was broken about this template. It seemed to work perfectly fine on my end, at least before Jlwoodwa started fiddling around with it. But thanks for fixing it, anyways. — Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 13:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
I've granted WP:IPBE for 3 months based on your UTRS request. If you continue to run into these issues after it expires, see the linked page for instructions on how to request it again. Spicy ( talk) 16:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi
I dont know if you are aware but there is a FishBase citation template.
<nowiki>{{FishBase|genus|species|month|year}}</nowiki>
For the month and year you use the current version of Fishbase from the citation field within FishBase, currently it is February 2024. It changes every 3-4 months.
So for Atlantic salmon the citation would be (as of today’s date):
<nowiki>{{FishBase|Salmo|salar|February|2024}}</nowiki> Quetzal1964 ( talk) 11:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
the month in which the article was accessed, which gives the version of FishBase. YorkshireExpat ( talk) 13:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Quetzal1964 ( talk) 14:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your interest in the Pandosentis article, I did a good faith revert, as the links were self-redirecting, which would cause an infinite loop. As per Wikipedia:SELFRED. The MOS I believe is to make these self-redirecting links boldface. Mattximus ( talk) 00:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering if you would mind if I deleted our discussion at Talk:Apple since it brings little value to the RM; as a compromise you can put this instead:
DS537(WIR) 15:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi. Just briefly: the genus name Plaesiorrhina was recognized as a homonym back in 1984 and replaced; for some reason, BioLib does not acknowledge this, and treats Burmeister's name as valid, and this causes considerable confusion with that set of genus names. I have been unable to find a single published source for the BioLib classification, and I don't believe it can be considered a reliable source in this case. Dyanega ( talk) 18:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 July regarding a requested move in which you participated. The thread is ABC News (United States). Thank you. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi. If you look at the edit history for the Pyropsini template, you'll see that I made the same "correction" that you did (temporarily). However, there are several recent sources that have reclassified Pyropsini as a tribe within Aphaeninae, so they are no longer in Fulgorinae. See the citations at Aphaeninae. Dyanega ( talk) 16:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi YorkshireExpat! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Happy editing! Loopy30 ( talk) 21:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello YorkshireExpat,
Thanks for your interest in Gastrodia. The newly described (November 2020) is not (yet?) in the World Checklist of Selected Plant Families, [1] unlike the other species in the list on that page. (The question "What are the criteria for inclusion in the list above" would be better asked on the article's Talk Page.) Gderrin ( talk) 06:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
References
Firstly, it's better not to move taxonomy templates if they are synonyms; instead use |same_as=
– see
Wikipedia:Automated taxobox system/taxonomy templates#same as. Secondly, Diplogasterida and Diplogasteromorpha can't be synonyms, because Diplogasterida is an order (see
here, p. 73), and Diplogasteromorpha is an infraorder. So when you redirected
Template:Taxonomy/Diplogasterida to
Template:Taxonomy/Diplogasteromorpha, you created inconsistent ranks in the taxonomy templates, which causes them to be put into an error-tracking category. It seems that WoRMS and the 2011 article linked above have different taxonomies. I have restored
Template:Taxonomy/Diplogasterida, but it and
Template:Taxonomy/Diplogasterina which uses it should probably be deleted, since they aren't used by any articles' taxoboxes.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
20:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
|taxon=Polysporangiophytes/Plantae
to make "Kingdom: Plantae" appear in the taxobox. So you can set up more than one taxonomy template for any taxon by using its name followed by / and a qualifier. There's a brief explanation at
Wikipedia:Automated taxobox system/advanced taxonomy#Taxon variants.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
20:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Hymedesmia Parpal Dumplin, from its old location at User:YorkshireExpat/sandbox. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. Iflaq (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider
.Thanks again, and happy editing!
Iflaq (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)GBIF's synonym Cumingia is based on The Interim Register of Marine and Nonmarine Genera if you look here. I don't rate IRMNG as a very reliable source for plants. Australian journal papers, like this one, all seem to agree with PoWO. Peter coxhead ( talk) 08:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Platypoda, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Des Vallee ( talk) 06:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Do you have a reason to be deleting such as at Template:Taxonomy/Incertae sedis/Parapoxvirus? If so, please give the reason in the edit summary. If performing several similar edits, it would be better to post a link to a discussion providing the background. It can be hard to find errors in articles in advance, but using "what links here" and checking a couple of articles after the change would avoid problems. Johnuniq ( talk) 00:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Hallo, When you posted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Taxonomic_species_terms you started off with @YorkshireExpat, which is likely to confuse readers as it's the way to alert yourself to the fact that you've posted there. You might like to edit that out?
For info, in case you don'tknow, the "ping" (or "@" or various other ways) only works if you include it in a posting and sign the post in the same edit - you can't retrospectively add it to a post unless you sign it again. That's a pitfall many of us come across before we learn. There's always something new to learn about editing Wikipedia. Pam D 22:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for editing the articles I created on the pygmy snapper and the bluestripe snapper. I prefer to use taxon in Speciesboxes, other people prefer genus + species, as far as I can see, both have the same effect so it is not necessary to change them when editing articles. In fish articles I think taxon is preferred. Quetzal1964 ( talk) 18:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
Great additions of taxobox and taxonomy templates. Sun Creator( talk) 14:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC) |
Thanks for the edits. The lead is sopposedly a summary of the article and I was advised that you may, or may not, put citations into the lead as long as you are consistent. I prefer not to have citations in the lead, what is being stated there should be cited elsewhere in the article. Although I stated in the lead that this was the only species in its genus, I think I left it implied in the taxonomy paragraph. I will delete the ref you put in the lead and amend Taxonomy. Quetzal1964 ( talk) 20:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for adding references to the Automatic Taxobox templates. I will try to use INaturalist from now on. I was not aware of how helpful it was. Sorry if I am creating work for you. Scorpions13256 ( talk) 23:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
A pleasure to collaborate with you! Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 17:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC) |
Thanks for your comment on the talk page, to make your view clear it is normal practice to preface your comment with Support or Oppose. As I proposed the change I think my support is taken as understood. Quetzal1964 ( talk) 16:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
There are quite a few other "preload" taxonomy templates in addition to the one you edited ( Template:Taxonomy/preload/?). They date to the creation and early development of the automatic taxobox system around 2010–2012. All break up occurrences of "subst" using includeonly tags. So either all need changing or none do. As I don't fully understand why Smith609 wrote them this way, I've not changed this aspect. It's difficult to test your edit without creating unnecessary taxonomy templates. So it should probably be reverted. Peter coxhead ( talk) 21:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi I reverted your edit on the Taxonomy Template for Paranotothenia. For taxa above the genus level the WikiProject:Fishes follows the 5th Edition of Fishes of the World, FotW does not recognise subfamilies in the family Nototheniidae. I have added a note to the article Nototheniidae and each genus article has or will have a similar note. I hope you understand my reasoning. Quetzal1964 ( talk) 09:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
I also changed the taxobox to a species box, but you'll see that what you instead get is that the plant is from a genus of crabs, which can't be right... Draco phyllum 07:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Under the ICZN, species names that are Latin/Greek declinable adjectives must be spelled in a way that corresponds to the gender of the genus into which they are placed; Euscelis is a feminine genus, so the correct spelling is "incisa" rather than "incisus". The only names in the genus that end in "-us" are those which are not Latin or Greek adjectives. Dyanega ( talk) 15:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect "Latromirus". The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 2#"Latromirus" until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. TJRC ( talk) 04:12, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tetralonia malvae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pfaffenhofen. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 06:07, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi there - can I ask why you prodded this article? -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 15:15, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Why do you have such an insignificant article watchlisted– or at least following it so closely. I don't mind, just interested. Draco phyllum 19:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
Great work tidying up recently created articles thank you. Theroadislong ( talk) 16:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC) |
Hey, Thanks for your help on the Palyeidodon article. I submitted an article about Pisanodon to Wikipedia and would like your help with cleaning it up after it gets accepted. I also don't know how to properly edit a Speciesbox so if you could give me any help with that as well that would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HmmmSimon ( talk • contribs) 20:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
The article got denied for using sources without significant coverage of the species even though they were some of the same websites that I cited on the Palyeidodon article. I removed the only reference that was different (even though it was about the species) and will try to resubmit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HmmmSimon ( talk • contribs) 20:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider
.Thanks again, and happy editing!
CNMall41 ( talk) 00:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Hello, I saw that my recent edits of the "Coelophysis" kayentakatae page were reverted, can you please explain my mistakes in the edit. I cited my sources and "Coelophysis" kayentakatae's article doesn't fit the recent changes in Coelophysid classification. Note that "C." kayentakatae hasn't been placed in Coelophysis since 2004. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Augustios Paleo ( talk • contribs) 16:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
That makes more sense, thank you for the info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Augustios Paleo ( talk • contribs) 17:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider
.Thanks again, and happy editing!
Theroadislong ( talk) 17:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)Hello, why exactly does marking incertae sedis as not extinct cause a problem? Super Ψ Dro 21:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Template:Taxonomy/Pelomedusoidea has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan ( talk) 23:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks... most embarassing. I guess the syllable "cypho" didn't roll off the mind's tongue :p -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 15:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi, if you haven't, please see my comments at Talk:Teclea carpopunctifera re the moves back and forth. Peter coxhead ( talk) 16:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi! Happy to move that for you, but you should have been able to move it yourself – the redirect that was in the way had only one revision. For the future, if you'd like also to be able to move pages over a redirect that has more than one revision and so can't be overwritten, I'd be happy to add page mover to your user rights – just say the word! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 08:56, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello, YorkshireExpat. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.
Please take a moment to review
Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially
the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow
post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect
is used. This can be done using
Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to
secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status
can be revoked.
Useful links:
If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Primefac ( talk) 18:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Apologies but you have misunderstood WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA
“the article (if there is no common name) should go under the scientific name of lowest rank, but no lower than the monotypic genus. Redirects should be created from the other ranks to the actual article.”
It’s not something I personally agree with but it is the accepted policy, apparently it would cause confusion in fossil Taxa if you had the article at species level (!). Please revert your edits to this article to comply with WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA.
Thanks Quetzal1964 ( talk) 09:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for moving ambiguous monotypic genera to binomial titles. Please check the categories after moving. "Genus" categories such as Category:Crambidae genera and Category:Monotypic moth genera belong with the genus title, not the binomial. "Taxa named by" and "Species described in year" categories may also need to changed following a move. {{ R from monotypic taxon}}/{{ R to monotypic taxon}} usually will need to be changed. I've checked and updated the categories for all your moves over the last week.
Regarding Rabbit's purse, "Use common name to avoid dab as monotypic" isn't a position that has consensus among plant editors. I know Quetzal1964 uses the rationale with fish, but fish make more use of common names as titles than plants do, and monotypic fish genera have never been titled very consistently. "Rabbit's purse" is less commonly used than "Harfordia macroptera"; this plant doesn't occur in any English speaking country, and doesn't have a commonly used vernacular name. WP:COMMONNAME does not say to use vernacular name titles instead of scientific name titles if a vernacular name simply EXISTS. The title should be "the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)". For many organisms, scientific names are more commonly used than vernacular names. Plantdrew ( talk) 19:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Why does Tropheryma need to be "Tropheryma"? Neither https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC119894/ or https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6113628/ use the " in the name. If there is some reason it needs the " then it should explained and sourced in the article. I looked but couldn't find any other articles in Category:Micrococcales that used the ". Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:35, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
not validly published, which is why I suspect it has the quotes. That said, I've had discussions before about the correct form for disputed names so it's all up for reasonable debate, and following the main body of the literature is something that comes up often as an argument. YorkshireExpat ( talk) 07:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited "Tropheryma", you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Buchnera.
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello.
Can you revert the article United Kingdom weather records and check it? The article has been messed up with so many and unsourced edits.
Yours sincerely, 31.200.12.242 ( talk) 16:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I see that you prefer linked species or genus lists to the traditional bulleted lists. I understand these were intended for use within taxoboxes. In the main body these lists often include common names. How do you deal with common names?
For example
as opposed to
As you can see the common name is in small text.
I prefer the Species lists as they are easier to type up but, as far as I can see, their utility seems limited in the main body of articles. Quetzal1964 ( talk) 15:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Special:Diff/1111006851 - FlightTime ( open channel) 21:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
{{short description|Largest living species of dolphin}}
to {{Short description|Largest living species of dolphin}}
These templates are not case sensitive. -
FlightTime (
open channel)
18:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't know how I managed to undo the genus list, all I was changing was some wording in distribution as Southern Ocean species had been described since Anderson and Fedorov 2004. Quetzal1964 ( talk) 17:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi YorkshireExpat: I see you moved the Stromatella (lichen) article to Stromatella bermudana yesterday and made the former article a redirect. However, according to the consensus reached at WP:TOL "for a monotypic genus (one that contains a single species), the genus name should be used, as it is included in the binomial nomenclature, and the genus title is more concise than the binomial." So I think it should have stayed at the former name, with the species name as a redirect. Do you not agree? MeegsC ( talk) 10:46, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
The exception is when a monotypic genus name needs to be disambiguated. The article should then be at the species, since this is a more natural form of disambiguation.YorkshireExpat ( talk) 10:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Happy Holidays | ||
Hello, I wish you the very best during the holidays. And I hope you have a very happy 2023! Bruxton ( talk) 01:54, 26 December 2022 (UTC) |
Hi there. I noticed you moved the page for the subfamily Pireninae to the family page Pirenidae (presumably following the recent updates to Pteromalidae). However, Pireninae is now also the name of a subfamily within Pirenidae. Should the Pireninae page be restored (and updated to reflect that it's now within Pirenidae instead of Pteromalidae) and a new page created for Pirenidae? Note that I updated the subfamilies and genera on the moved page before I noticed this issue. I'm not sure of the best way to hanlde this. Cheers. Friesen5000 ( talk) 16:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
I want to reiterate here what I said on the move request: it was really bad form to preemptively add a warning template to my request, since it connotes to other editors that some sort of vote-stacking has occurred there, when it clearly has not. You made your points passionately...and repeatedly. Other editors don't seem to be persuaded so far; maybe others will come along who are convinced. But slapping a warning label into a move request that didn't need one feels like you're trying to work the refs a bit.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it wasn't malicious (we all make mistakes). But it was bad form nonetheless. Woko Sapien ( talk) 20:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Dear YorkshireExpat. I've made a further change to the Template:Taxonomy/Sabaconidae which i wonder if can be a compromise solution. As you seem to have disliked my intent to actually link to the taxonomic article - which i feel is critical as that IS the taxonomic reference, but unwieldy if formulated the way i had altered it, then how about this other way now there instead, with direction to Catalogue of Life? The outline is here Template:Catalogue of Life. For me, iNaturalist is frequently out of date or even worse errors and confusions with the taxonomy of many groups, contains errors that go unmanaged for an age. In last months, i've been rebuilding much of the iNaturalist taxonomy for this wider taxon group Opiliones, which includes Sabaconidae/Sabacon that now since then i'm aiming to reflect on various Wiki pages. But my point however, if even though for certain Opiliones the iNaturalist taxonomy is now updated, i really do no think it's a good idea to be treating iNaturalist as the "goto reference" for taxonomy. It's not a taxonomic site and as such it does not cross reference to the taxonomic literature and actual taxonomic focused databases. Instead, Catalogue of Life does explicitly do exactly such things - citing the key literature and linking to the key taxonomic database where can find further taxonomic resources. Hence, I'd greatly prefer the various taxa templates to link to Catalogue of Life instead. For example the one for Sabacon linked with 643LM could instead link to this https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/browse?taxonKey=643LM Sjl197 ( talk) 20:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
|parent=
.Hi, see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Taxonomy/Xiphioidei. You need to change all the links before putting a taxonomy template in the unnecessary taxonomy templates category. I've made a temporary fix using a same_as taxonomy template, because your edit caused many consequential errors. Peter coxhead ( talk) 11:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I just wonder what was broken about this template. It seemed to work perfectly fine on my end, at least before Jlwoodwa started fiddling around with it. But thanks for fixing it, anyways. — Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 13:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
I've granted WP:IPBE for 3 months based on your UTRS request. If you continue to run into these issues after it expires, see the linked page for instructions on how to request it again. Spicy ( talk) 16:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi
I dont know if you are aware but there is a FishBase citation template.
<nowiki>{{FishBase|genus|species|month|year}}</nowiki>
For the month and year you use the current version of Fishbase from the citation field within FishBase, currently it is February 2024. It changes every 3-4 months.
So for Atlantic salmon the citation would be (as of today’s date):
<nowiki>{{FishBase|Salmo|salar|February|2024}}</nowiki> Quetzal1964 ( talk) 11:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
the month in which the article was accessed, which gives the version of FishBase. YorkshireExpat ( talk) 13:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Quetzal1964 ( talk) 14:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your interest in the Pandosentis article, I did a good faith revert, as the links were self-redirecting, which would cause an infinite loop. As per Wikipedia:SELFRED. The MOS I believe is to make these self-redirecting links boldface. Mattximus ( talk) 00:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering if you would mind if I deleted our discussion at Talk:Apple since it brings little value to the RM; as a compromise you can put this instead:
DS537(WIR) 15:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi. Just briefly: the genus name Plaesiorrhina was recognized as a homonym back in 1984 and replaced; for some reason, BioLib does not acknowledge this, and treats Burmeister's name as valid, and this causes considerable confusion with that set of genus names. I have been unable to find a single published source for the BioLib classification, and I don't believe it can be considered a reliable source in this case. Dyanega ( talk) 18:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 July regarding a requested move in which you participated. The thread is ABC News (United States). Thank you. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi. If you look at the edit history for the Pyropsini template, you'll see that I made the same "correction" that you did (temporarily). However, there are several recent sources that have reclassified Pyropsini as a tribe within Aphaeninae, so they are no longer in Fulgorinae. See the citations at Aphaeninae. Dyanega ( talk) 16:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)