User talk:Kevmin/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Ithonidae

Hi, I've reviewed Ithonidae, at T:TDYK, could you add a reference to the end of Ithonidae#Description_and_ecology so it meets the requirements for DYK? I think that ALT2 is probably the best hook to go with, unless you object. Thanks Smartse (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Reworded slightly and a new pair of references added to the section, how does it look? --Kevmin § 22:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Ithonidae

The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Kachinus

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Chamaecyparis eureka

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Pinus peregrinus

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Peltandra primaeva

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Nelumbo aureavallis

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Sassafras hesperia

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Fossil sandfly

Hello, I think you will like this articles about fossil sandfly doi:10.1186/1756-3305-2-25 and this doi:10.1186/1756-3305-1-22. --Snek01 (talk) 08:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting! Thanks for the links I will see what I can do with them.--Kevmin § 20:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Corylus johnsonii

--- Courcelles 18:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Tumion

Hi, saw your addition of Tumion Greene as a synonym of Torreya, do you have a citation for that? I didn't want to put a citation needed tag on it, especially since the species list on the page (as on most pages) is due to no-one in particular, but in general I'd like to add citations for taxonomic opinions, as the opportunity arises. If you can let me know, I'd be happy to format it on the page. Nadiatalent (talk) 12:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I first came across the name Tumion while dealing with a 1927 paper on the Latah Formation in washington, which listed "Tumion, more commonly called Torreya". Here is the first reference I came up with on line: USDA plants Torreya taxifolia page which is ok but not the greatest reference. I have not been able to find the actual paper which made Tumion a jr synonym as of yet.--Kevmin § 15:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I'll leave it. GRIN taxonomy, which is highly respectable, seems a bit ambiguous, since it lists a bunch of Tumion species as synonyms of Torreya species, but doesn't actually say that the genus name is a synonym. Perhaps it is a homotypic synonym, but IPNI doesn't say so ... (p.s. no such thing as "jr" synonyms in botany, just homotypic or heterotypic, superfluous, legitimate or not, "jr" is for zoology.) Nadiatalent (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

A little more digging has turned up the article I was needing for this. Here is the 1947 article in the journal Brittonia on the International Rules of Botanical nomenclature. Starting on page 37 of the article is: APPENDIX III. NOMINA GENERICA CONSERVANDA, specifically dealing with genus name conflicts and which names are retained. Entry 17 in the section is:

"17. Torreya Arn. in Ann. Nat., Hist. I. (1838) 130; non Rafin. in Amer. Monthly Mag. (1818) 356; nee Rafin. in Journ. de Phys. LXXXIX. (1819) 105; nee Spreng. Neue Entdeek. II. 1821) 121; nee Eaton, Man. Bot. N. Amer. ed. 7 (1836), 560; nee Croom ex Meissn. Gen. II. (1843) 340.-T.: T. taxifolia Arn.
Tumion iRafin. Amen. Nat. (1840) 63; Greene, Pittonia, II. pars 10 (1891), 193."

see also the preview pane in this Jstor link which also shows the entry. --Kevmin § 16:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Neat! And bizarre. There is no corresponding entry in the code of nomenclature at http://ibot.sav.sk/icbn/main.htm, Appendix E (nor in the paper version of the code). At the moment I'm stumped, but will try to look into this further. Nadiatalent (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

So I added your citation to the synonym. It may take a while for IPNI to catch up. Nadiatalent (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ektatotricha

Hello! Your submission of Ektatotricha at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Pseudosiobla cambelli

--- The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Ektatotricha

--- The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Resources

Hello, another public domain resource:

• (in German) Handlirsch A. (1937). "Neue Untersuchungen über die fossilen Insekten mit Ergänzungen und Nachträgen sowie Ausblicken auf phylogenetische, palaeogeographische und allgemein biologische Probleme. I. Teil." Annalen des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien 48: 1-140. PDF.

PDF has 12 Mb.

• (in German) Handlirsch A. (1938). "Neue Untersuchungen über die fossilen Insekten mit Ergänzungen und Nachträgen sowie Ausblicken auf phylogenetische, palaeogeographische und allgemein biologische Probleme. II. Teil." Annalen des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien 49: 1-240. PDF.

PDF has 30 Mb. Enjoy!

Do you know any fossil vertebtrate, that is known to eat some certain species of gastropod? If so, I would like to use it for some DYK hook someday. Snek01 (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Taxobox

Its not OK: [1]. Taxonomy above superfamily is also important. 20.000 gastropod articles uses it. --Snek01 (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Per the taxobox guidelines though, the box should not include too much above the immediate ranks above that talked about in the article. Thus for Crikey it can include additional levels between family and genus. But the upper clades between Superfamily and order are not immediately relevant to the genus, hence the removal from the taxobox. I do understand that the taxonomy is Important, but the taxobox is just a listing of the taxonomy, and does not effect the placement in categories or actual relationships. --Kevmin § 21:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought that you will say that. I respect your opinion, but then share this opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods, please. Because it has no meaning if all wikiproject gastropods members will add something and another wikipedian will remove it. Have a nice day. --Snek01 (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Palaeovespa

Someone has just created an article on Palaeovespa which is very short indeed. I was about to clean it up, when I noticed that one of your sandboxes contains a much better article that I think we should be presenting instead. Is it ready for public release? I could arrange it so that the part of the edit history relating to Palaeovespa in your sandbox could be moved to the new article, or you could simply copy the text you've got over the article. Either way it should be clear that this is your work. Let me know if you want me to help. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Good morning Stemonitis I hope to have the Palaeovespa article ready in the next day or so at the latest. I'm working through the species descriptions right now and the n will copy past the text over the the article space. Thanks for letting me know about the new stub! --Kevmin § 15:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK query RE Azolla

Hi Kevmin, could you take a look at your nomination for DYK? Thanks Smartse (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Clarification attempted. --Kevmin § 19:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Palaeovespa

-- Calmer Waters 18:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Chester A. Arnold

-- — Rlevse • Talk • 18:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for David P. Penhallow

-- — Rlevse • Talk • 18:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Azolla primaeva

 — Rlevse • Talk •  18:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Wessiea

 — Rlevse • Talk •  18:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Electromyrmococcus

Hello! Your submission of Electromyrmococcus at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Smartse (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Responded at the nomination. --Kevmin § 15:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Trochodendron drachuckii

-- Cirt (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Linden Tree edit

I was wondering why a reference to a comical sketch about the potent fragrance of the Linden Tree is not a 'notable' reference? My reference to it was not the first time this has been added in the 'literary references' section, and I feel this is an example of people trying to add a valid reference (which is surely the point of Wikipedia?), but cannot understand why it is not allowed? Please explain, as I'm sure we can come to some cumpromise? best, IKnowsBetterIDoes —Preceding unsigned comment added by IKnowsBetterIDoes (talk • contribs) 18:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

There are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of references to Tilia trees out there. to be added to the article it should be particularly notable to the cultural awareness of the genus and not just a funny passing reference that involves the word cum, sorry. --Kevmin § 20:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Electromyrmococcus

-- — Rlevse • Talk • 06:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for your contributions to the pig articles! Chrisrus (talk) 22:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Whether it's rude to point out Peccary ignorance

I hardly think it's uncivil to point out that one's line of argument betrays they don't know much about peccaries and is best countered by suggesting that someone learn a bit about them. Lots of people don't know much about peccaries, and there's no shame in it. So pointing out that the line of argument that the statement "peccaries are not concidered true pigs by experts" is a subjective matter of opinion, that is a subjective matter of opinion; pointing out that this line of argument is best dealt with by doing just a tiny bit of research on peccaries is not uncivil. Anyone who studies just a little bit about peccaries knows that the statement "peccaries are not concidered true pigs by experts" is not a matter of opinion, but an uncontrovertial statement of fact. Accusations of uncivility on my part are not warrented for having said words to the effect of "learn something about peccaries, a simple google search will suffice". Chrisrus (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Cruschedula

--The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Fossil fungi

Hi, I enjoyed your new additions on the four genera of fossil fungi. Are you interested in collaborating to make all four good articles? Sasata (talk) 05:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy to collaborate! Please let me know what would be needed to improve the articles as needed. --Kevmin § 06:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Great! My plan: I'll read the Hibbett and Poinar papers myself over the next few days, copyedit the articles, and perhaps make some additions. I'll do a lit search to see if there's any other papers mentioning the genera (for example, the ISI Web of Knowledge says Hibbett et al. has been cited 31 times since its 1997 appearance, so maybe there's some stuff that could be added). Any kind of pictures would be nice, maybe some photographs of extant taxa that are thought to be similar to the extinct ones. I could also try sending an email to the authors and see if they'd be willing to release any pics for these articles. If everything goes smoothly, and reviewers are willing, we might be able to get these to GA before they make their appearance on the front page. Sound good? Sasata (talk) 14:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, In my spare time I will start trying to locate the citations and see what can be added. --Kevmin § 15:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. It appears that the discovery of Palaeoagaracites antiquus in 2007, which the authors claim is the oldest fossil agaric, renders the current DYK hook inaccurate. I see it's already been put into the prep area; perhaps we should request the hook be removed temporarily, long enough to write an article on this fossil and alter the hook. Do you have access to the article? Sasata (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Ohhh, nice find! I have downloaded the article and will start working up a page for it in my sandbox right away. Definitely if we need to we should see if the hook can be delayed and Palaeoagaracites added.--Kevmin § 20:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I have altered the authorities. Will continue working on the other articles in the meantime. Sasata (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Protosialis casca

-- — Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Archaeomarasmius

-- — Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Aureofungus

-- — Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Coprinites

-- — Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Protomycena

-- — Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Palaeoagaracites

-- Shubinator (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Heliobatis

--The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Paleopsephurus

--The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Collenia

You can have the Collenia article. It's been sitting at a stub sentence for 3 years, so I did not realize that expanding the article would be an issue. There are plenty of other articles where I can work. --Kleopatra (talk) 05:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Please AGF! I have at no point claimed the article as "my own". All that I did was readd that Collenia is a genus and ask if you had a reference which stated otherwise. If so feel free to add it to the article!--Kevmin § 06:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Metacarcinus starri

--The DYK project (nominate) 18:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Tabbed browsing

I use firefox, and it doesn't work. I created an account here, then usurped my current user name here, and I tried to do it at commons, also, because the user name has no edits there, but their bureaucrats are completely arbitrary, and when I was signed in at commons, it signed me in on en.wiki with the same user name I used at commons, therefore signing me out of my en.wiki user account.

I can't spend any more time on it, though. It's frustrating to make a fair request, have it denied for an arbitrary reason, then see another user get their request granted by the same admin, even though the arbitrary reason applies more to them than to me. In the meantime I could have uploaded a few dozen top quality micrographs for use all over wikipedia, helped the categorizing, etc. It's very frustrating when editing gets roadblocked for no good reason.

Thanks for taking the time to make a suggestion. --Kleopatra (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Protomycena at GAN

... thought you should know (you're the co-nom!). Cheers, Sasata (talk) 04:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, cool! I didn't even get there before the GA review was completed, but your reworking is looking great as always, thanks! --Kevmin § 10:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Appianoporites

-- The DYK project (nominate) 18:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Margaretbarromyces

-- The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Quatsinoporites

-- The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Plasmodium

Your edit on this page was unhelpful at best. I do not know if you can count or can be bothereed to count. There are approximately 250 species of plasmodium known to date. I have been able to place only ~100 of these in the subgenera. You deletion of 150 species in the listing IMHO constitutes vandalism. These species have taken several weeks/months t track down and I have been working on that page for several years. I believe your actions constitutes vandalism in that you have deleted information with full knowledge that your actions were doing so. You have aggravated this offense by claiming a level one warning.

You do have a long record of useful work on Wikipedia and for that you are to be thanked. That having been said it is a matter of some concern that you would behave in such a fashion. If you genunely do have a useful suggestion on how to improve this page without resorting to wholescale deletion I would be very happy to read of it.

Wikipedia as I understand it is about finding generally consenual method of improvement and not about issuing threats. DrMicro (talk) 09:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Please take this up on the Plasmodium talk page. I will note that as the information is not being removed entirely from the article, rather article information is being swapped, calling the edit vandalism is false. I at no point placed the level 1 vand template on your page, please note who made that edit and take the matter up with them! I will make my suggestion for situation as the Plasmodium talk page, where I note other options have already been raised that you have yet to address. --Kevmin § 09:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that your wholescale removal of the species listing is difficult to describe as anything but vandalism. I have read your proposal. The species incerta has a special meaning in the Zoological code and to use it in the fashion you have suggested would be at best misleading. I would much perfer to discuss these matters on the discussion page rather than reverting vandlaism on a regular basis. DrMicro (talk) 10:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

One, its not vandalism so please stop insinuating that it is. I am aware that insertae sedis (not a species designation btw) has a specific meaning, and am willing to work on the title of the section. I will also point out that each change to subgenera in the taxobox has been accompanied by the request to take discussion to the talk page. --Kevmin § 10:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

removal of Bison antiquus ancester skull image link

Hi,

Why was the World Museum of Man Steppe Bison skull link removed? This is of value, I feel, because it shows the ancestry of the Bison antiquus as the page states in Wikipedia: "During the Pleistocene Ice Age, steppe wisent (Bison priscus), migrated from Siberia into Alaska." --Maurymary (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Maurymary

The link is not really needed as we already have a number of Bison priscus fossil images in wikicommons that can be used for illustration. I didn't see anything on the external link that made it a notable inclusion in the Bison antiquus page. --Kevmin § 22:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the page I referenced has a much better source of photos including measurements and provenance which the other image links are simply a single image with no additional information. --Maurymary (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Maurymary

If the information is good and the information is verifiable, then it should be added to the pages where it is pertinent. However what is the source of the information on the site you are linking to? --Kevmin § 22:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It is a specimen which is part of the World Museum of Man and the page is part of the museum's online exhibit.--Maurymary (talk) 23:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC) Maurymary

I see that, however I am not seeing why that should make it a notable inclusion. The information on the page there is not references and therefore the verifiability is questionable.--Kevmin § 23:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I see a Museum of Man in San Diego and a Little World Museum of Man in Nagoya but this "World Museum of Man" seems to only be a website. Am I missing some actual physical museum associated with this site? Rmhermen (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

That was one of my concerns. There doesn't seem to be an actual museum, only the website.--Kevmin § 19:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The website has some pretty well-respected authorities involved with this online project. You never mentioned this concern in your early messages. The website is referenced and staffed by researchers working in top organizations in their field and is also referenced by National Geographic. Why should the absence of a physical location be detrimental??? Where the heck is the physical location for WIKIPEDIA? Your zeal in trying to control the topics you have been given is misguided and you obviously have not spent the time to fully research the online museum I am trying to reference in this simple link. I give up. Since when was the Gestapo running Wikipedia??? Moderators like you have turned this open project into a power play, sadly.

Maurymary (talk) 06:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)Maurymary

Hmm, when did I get nominated to a mod position? I would suggest you read through this page on Original Research Unfortunately the World Museum of Man, as an unverifiable source falls into the realm of OR unless the researchers publish the information in a peer-reviewed source. That is one of the main concerns, the other being that the image itself can be replaced with a ccc3 released image from commons. --Kevmin § 06:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Petrocardium

-- Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Montrichardia aquatica

-- Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

AN/I notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I have requested that an administrator intervene at the Plasmodium article to give us some breathing space to create the list. My suggestion is we back off discussing with DrMicro for long enough to create a list in the article or elsewhere, after which, I believe he will see that our method is reasonable. I hope you're game, as this is a major topic and the article needs to be usable. Thanks. --Kleopatra (talk) 17:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Aquila bullockensis

-- Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Paleoleishmania

Gatoclass (talk) 12:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Lutzomyia adiketis

--Gatoclass (talk) 12:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Units

Ciao! Metric units, for non strictly US or UK arguments, should be used FIRST at least; I think stop to use such strange units would be the best solution, but I don't know why just two countries in the world are so stuck with them! Curious! Good work! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 14:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Stopping use of imperial would be ideal, but only if the notably large populations of the US and UK phased them out. Until then, as a neutral encyclopedia, the most reasonable solution is to use both sets with metric first, but to NEVER arbitrarily remove one or the other due to personal dislike of on system. As such I have readded the imperial measurements, via the convert template to the Sinraptoridae article. If you must change units use the convert template from now on.--Kevmin § 06:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Balaena

Balaena article now open for business Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawing comments

I'll withdraw a comment if I want. The policy is directed toward not deleting your own comments after others have replied to them or commented on them.[2] Now that you're speaking for me, be sure to keep on top of speaking for me. --Kleopatra (talk) 05:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

:-/ ......... meh.--Kevmin § 07:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

true vs. yes

Hi, I saw you modified the |extinct= to equal "yes" on a taxon template...is there an advantage with this over "true"? Just curious. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I dont think it makes any difference for the display of the dagger, but using true rather then yes was causing a number of the templates to show up in Category:Automatic taxobox cleanup, while having yes removed them from the category. Also a group of templates that were there were due to the taxon rank (Genus, Ordo, etc) not being capitalized. Again, not something that would show up in the taxoboxes but was resulting in being in the cleanup category. Hope that helps. BTW I noticed that the templates there due to having the authority parameter did not leave after the parameter was removed, so I dont know what to do with them. --Kevmin § 07:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Taxon rank shouldn't be capitalized, in fact. I suspect that the pages disappeared from the category just because your edit forced their categorization to be refreshed (a null edit would have had the same effect). Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 20:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

i would agree with you except that a number of the pages I tried performing null edits on and did not disappear from the category until I tried capitalizing the taxon. --Kevmin § 23:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

If I get a moment to do so, I will get into the code and have it display more descriptive error categories. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Central American river turtle

The image you removed labelled Dermatemydidae has only one extant species. The article says so and I can find references to support that. But I am wondering if you know of a extinct species or you removed image because it does not clarify the species? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 23:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The main reason I removed the image is that it is only identified to family. According to the captioning on the image, the specimens is Cretaceous in age and from Inner Mongolia, which eliminates Dermatemys as a possible genus for the specimen. This means the specimen came from one of the other Genera (all extinct) that are placed in the family. That I can find the family, while monotypic now, is represented by a number of extinct genera, Adocus, Baptemys, Compsemys, Heishanemys, Peishanemys, Peshanemys, Sinochelys, Trachyaspis and Tsaotanemys. Also known is at least one (undescribed?) species of Dermatemys from the Miocene of Texas. The Dermatemydidae family page should at some point soon be changed from a redirect to a overview page linking the different genera. I also note Compsemys should be added to the Extinct turtles navbox. Hope this helps.--Kevmin § 03:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge of Progymnospermophyta and Progymnosperm

I realize now that I did not follow all the instructions at Help:Merging#Selective_paste_merger which I will now do. This is not a controversial merge; the pages describe precisely the same taxon. So I see no need to do the merge in any other way. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Graeophonus

Hello! Your submission of Graeophonus at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Muhandes (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Note that I added the word "larva" at the end of the hook, feel free to remove it if it is not appropriate. By the way, the article uses "larvae", isn't that the plural? --Muhandes (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Graeophonus

--Materialscientist (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Pintomyia falcaorum

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   16:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Mycetophagites

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Mycetophagites, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://danpritchard.com/wiki/Palaeoagaracites.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 08:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Entropezites, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://danpritchard.com/wiki/Palaeoagaracites.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 08:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Not actually copyvios as the page noted by CorenSearchBot (http://danpritchard.com/wiki/Palaeoagaracites) is in fact a direct copy of the Palaeoagaracites I wrote here a while ago. The similarity is due to the three species, Mycetophagites, Entropezites, and Palaeoagaracites being described from a single fossil specimen.--Kevmin § 08:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Anthidium recats

Thanks for that. I hope you used AWB or the like. Sorry for causing the work. I took the cat from another species article in the same genus that was a DYK, so I thought it was fine. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Entropezites

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Mycetophagites

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Metapelma archetypon

-The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Anthidium scudderi

-The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Anthidium exhumatum

-The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Corythosaurus

I'm going to be copy+pasting some content I had pre-made that had references in that format. It was easier just to switch the article over since there were so few references anyway. It also cleans up the code a bit since the references aren't defined in-line with the text. Abyssal (talk) 00:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Sequoiadendron chaneyi

-- The DYK project(nominate) 08:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Aspidopleura

--The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Brevivulva

--The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Neanaperiallus

--The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Hoko River Formation

-- The DYK project (nominate) 18:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Garcorops jadis

-- The DYK project (nominate) 12:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Rosids

Hi, Kevmin. Thanks for taking care of some of the Rosales taxoboxes. I've been working on updating everything to APG III, but it takes a lot of time. There are over 2000 edits to be made to the Rosales alone! I did notice that you haven't been including |unranked_ordo=[[Rosids]] and removed it from one taxobox that had it. Most of us that have been updating these taxoboxes are treating rosids and asterids as major ranks that should be displayed. If you do further edits like this, could you include the rosid clade? Thanks, Rkitko ^(talk) 12:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I'm not sure where I missed the Rosids clade at but I have it now. I didnt mean to remove Rosales sorry about that! All this work because I was planning on writing up several extinct species, o well, thats what it takes.--Kevmin § 02:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Glisachaemus

-- The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Baltocteniza

-- The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Electrocteniza

-- The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Tainosia

-- The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Palaeoperenethis

-- The DYK project (nominate) 06:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Neviusia dunthornei

Hello! Your submission of Neviusia dunthornei at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

the doi and pmid links for ref 1 & 2 seem to be not working for me... ? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Pimoa cthulhu

Hello! Your submission of Pimoa cthulhu at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Neviusia dunthornei

--The DYK project (nominate) 18:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Pimoa cthulhu

--The DYK project (nominate) 06:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Mollusca project?

Hi Kevmin, I noticed your edit summary on the Spondylus talk page. Yes it is a shame that there is no mollusk project on Wikipedia. The gastropods are an extremely numerous class of invertebrates. Most people don't know that they are second only to the insects in number of named species. Many people within malacology have to specialize, and many do specialize in gastropods. Unfortunately in general terms there are currently not that many people worldwide interested in the Mollusca. WP does at least have have a Project Cephalopods, but currently there is no project bivalves or project Mollusca. Maybe in the future... Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing common names

Given that many people prefer common names (I don't), there is a strong case for putting them in WP articles. I agree that descriptive common names need to be sourced. However, giving "Shaw's agave" for Agave shawii doesn't seem to me to need a source: it's just a translation of the Latin, so I reverted your reversion. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I took it out as it was added by an IP that has a habit of adding "vernacular" names which are not actually used for the species/genus. They got a week long block a little while ago for constantly adding a made up name to the Adzebill page. My general opinion is that if the name is in use there shouldnt be a problem with finding and adding a reference at the same time. Course I spend most of my time working on tertiary plant and insect articles, so its not often I actually deal with vernacular names, haha. I do try to add an etymology sentence in each of the articles I work with. --Kevmin § 08:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, understood (and I see it's sourced now). But in general, I personally wouldn't revert the addition of, say, "Smith's geranium" to an article on "Geranium smithii", even if there wasn't a reference, given that "geranium" is in common use for Geranium. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I have come across enough examples of instances where the vernacular name for "Geranium smithii" was actually something different entirely, say "fuzzy mugwump", or where there wasn't actually a vernacular name at all. This is generally why I'm pretty demanding when vernacular names are added.--Kevmin § 19:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Pinus matthewsii

-- The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Formicium

--Materialscientist (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Carya washingtonensis

--Casliber (talk · contribs) 17:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Eriocampa tulameenensis

--The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK and MEDRS

Please see this conversation, this hook, and have a look at WP:MEDRS for an understanding of how to source medical statements on Wikipedia. Not only does the source used to support the hook not rise to the level of sourcing needed for medical statements on Wikipedia, the DYK hook misrepresented the information in the source, so should not have passed even if it had been a reliable source. That "herbalists believe" something is not sufficient for a statement about "medicinal uses" for something. Regards SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Hydriomena? protrita

Hello! Your submission of Hydriomena? protrita at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Myth

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a myth is "A traditional story, typically involving supernatural beings or forces, which embodies and provides an explanation, aetiology, or justification for something such as the early history of a society, a religious belief or ritual, or a natural phenomenon." The works of H. P. Lovecraft do not constitute a "traditional story" and are thus best called "fiction", defined by the OED as "The species of literature which is concerned with the narration of imaginary events and the portraiture of imaginary characters; fictitious composition. Now usually, prose novels and stories collectively; the composition of works of this class." --Stemonitis (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh but if you look at definition number two that OED gives it does cover the Cthulhu mythos. "a widely held but false belief or idea; a fictitious or imaginary person or thing; an exaggerated or idealized conception of a person or thing". --Kevmin § 01:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The Cthulhu mythos is not a "widely held" belief; you are stretching the definitions now. It is fiction, and is universally acknowledged as such. I cannot therefore see what the problem is with describing it as fiction. Whether or not it is a myth is evidently contentious, but no-one doubts that it is fiction. Why not simply describe it as fiction? --Stemonitis (talk) 06:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The quote from the OED is rather selective. The full entry here is "A widespread but untrue or erroneous story or belief; a widely held misconception; a misrepresentation of the truth. Also: something existing only in myth; a fictitious or imaginary person or thing." All make it clear that "myth" is something that is supposed by some to be true but is not. The "fictitious or imaginary person or thing" is clearly an expansion of "existing only in myth", not any fictitious or imaginary person or thing. An piece of fiction that is written as fiction is not a "myth". Peter coxhead (talk) 07:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify about this instance, Peter: are you saying that since Lovecraft's works were written as fiction, they cannot be considered myths? That is my reading of your text, but I don't want to put words in your mouth. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how else you can interpret the definition of myth itself. For something to be "untrue" or "erroneous" or a "misconception" or a "misrepresentation", someone has to be claiming that it is true or is an accurate conception or representation. You wouldn't say that something written as fiction is any of these things (you might say "it's not true, it's just fiction" but "not true" is not the same as "untrue" – not telling the truth is not the same as telling untruths). I'm in tricky territory here, but consider L. Ron Hubbard's science fiction stories. According to him and believers in scientology, they were not all written just as fiction; some are facts and form the basis of their religion. Since I don't believe that any of them are true, those of his stories which believers claim were not written as fiction can correctly be described by me as "myths". Note that they would deny that they are myths: because they would not accept that they were "untrue", "erroneous", "misconceptions" or "misrepresentations". Any of his stories which no-one claims are anything but fiction, cannot, I would argue, be described as myths by anyone.

So given that, as far as I know, neither Lovecraft nor anyone else claims that his works were written as anything but fiction, I would say that they cannot correctly be described as myths. (On the other hand, there appear to be people, particularly in the US, or so it seems from this side of the Atlantic, who believe in all kinds of ridiculous things, so perhaps there are people who believe that Lovecraft's stories describe reality.) Peter coxhead (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Biological screw joint

Hi Kevmin,

The biological screw was first discovered in Trigonopterus oblongus but it has been found in all weevil species examined by the scientists to date and appears to be a universal feature of the family Curculionidae. Just to correct your view. AshLin (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ahh good to know. I still think that the information as presented so far is very relevant to T. oblongus and does not need to be entirely removed.--Kevmin § 17:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kevmin, some material retained in Trigonopterus, to which T. oblongus now redirects to. Hope this is adequate as per your judgement. Biological screw joint, as per your suggestion, has been ctreated afresh and is now up for DYK review. Would you consider finishing off this DYK considering your close involvement with the previous incomplete review?

DYK for Neurosymploca? oligocenica

-- The DYK project (nominate) 21:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Prehistoric Lepidoptera

--Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 01:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Hydriomena? protrita

-- Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Tortrix destructus, Tortrix florissantana

Hello! Your submission of Tortrix? destructus, Tortrix? florissantana at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Orlady (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I've clarified the reqested points in the articles as much as I can and responded at Dyk... --Kevmin § 22:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Template talk:Did you know/Dominickus

The formatting of Template talk:Did you know/Dominickus suggests that you didn't fill out the nomination template supplied automatically, but rather copied-and-pasted someone else's nomination and then replaced their information with your own. In the future, please fill out the preloaded template instead of copying text from other nominations; this time it didn't really cause any problems, but the system has been designed to work with the preloaded template and hasn't been tested for uses like these, so it's possible that this sort of copying and pasting could cause problems in the future. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I actually did fill out the preloaded template that is at the top of the page, For some reason, I think I forgot that step actually, I forgot to add my nom to the correct day when I finished filling out the template. It was just now that i realized I missed adding it to the page. Is there are specific way this should be handled?? --Kevmin § 04:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you didn't, because there was text in there that as far as I know the template does not produce (specifically, Created by Kevmin (talk). Nominated by Kevmin (talk); in this case the template would have produced Created by Kevmin (talk). Self nom).

{{subst:NewDYKnom2
 | article         = Dominickus
 |    article2     = 
 | hook            = ... that the family placement for the fossil moth genus '''''[[Dominickus]]''''' was not noticed until [[entomologist]] [[Norman Tindale]] was looking at pictures of modern moths from Australia?
 | status          = new
 | author          = Kevmin
 |    author2      = 
 | image           = 
 |    caption      = 
 | comment         = 
 | reviewed        = Encephalartos caffer
 | revieweddiff    = http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk%3ADid_you_know%2FEncephalartos_caffer&action=historysubmit&diff=442929604&oldid=442518078
}}

^ that would be the correct way to fill out the template for this nomination (step II of the instructions).

As for the issue of adding the nom to the main T:TDYK page (step III of the instructions), there's nothing special to be done. Adding it a bit late is not a big deal, as long as it hasn't exceeded the 5-day limit. I am looking into getting a bot to automatically detect noms that have been created but haven't been added to the main nomination page. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

That IS what I filled out as you can see here, all I did tonight was add the {{Template talk:Did you know/Dominickus}} template to the August 3 section. --Kevmin § 04:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

My point is, again, what I see there is what makes me think the template was not filled out. Anyway, I'm not a mind-reader and I don't know what you did, or how you filled out the template if you filled it out. But next time you nominate one, could you please also keep track of the template (e.g., the text you put in the edit window before clicking the Save button--save it in a Sandbox or a text document or something), and show it to me afterwards? The only way this latest nomination of yours could have come out formatted the way it did is either a) you didn't use the template, or b) the template produced some error that I can't seem to replicate; if it's the latter reason, I'd like to be able to see how you filled the template out so I can figure out what's wrong with it. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Tortrix destructus

--Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Tortrix florissantana

--Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Acer douglasense

--Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Dominickus

--Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Epiborkhausenites

--Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Neoephemera antiqua

-- Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Acer alaskense

-- Gatoclass (talk) 08:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Osmunda wehrii

-- Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Wesley C. Wehr

-- Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Nephila jurassica

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   15:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Sinomeganeura

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Bohemiatupus

--Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK reviewing

Commenting on your opinion about the reviewing template, as you did Template:Did you know nominations/Marasmius funalis here, is not really appropriate for a review page itself (because it's not relevant to that editor's nomination), although I have always welcomed such comments at my talk page and WT:DYK. In the future, please consider making such comments at one of those places.

Regarding your specific points: "hook interest" is something that the most DYK participants believe you should be checking, and in fact checking it off in this checklist is no different than how reviewing was before; in the past, by adding you were tacitly stating "I believe this hook is interesting enough to go to the main page". Likewise, checking it off in the checklist doesn't mean it's objectively interesting and no one will ever dispute that; it's just a way of saying "I have thought about this and I think the hook is interesting enough; if anyone else disagrees, they are welcome to comment, otherwise, the hook is good to go". rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I looked through the DYK discussion page but was not sure where to put my comments there, and I was on a time limit, so I put them in the review. In regards to the "interesting" part, what I have seen over the years is a small group saying that hook are not interesting enough, while never really giving any objective rubric for which objective interest can be measured. I am one of those who thinks that almost (but not all I will agree) hooks are interesting to one group of people or another, even if it may not be interesting to me. I take this from working almost exclusively with taxa in the invertebrate and botanical paleontology realm the most folks have never even heard of before.--Kevmin § 18:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice if you could consider moving those comments (to my talk page, to Template talk:DYK hook review or something, or to a new section of WT:DYK), since they're not really directed at the nominator and thus there's not anything he can do about them.

Regarding the interest factor, like I said above, if you think this hook has potential to be intereting (or, more specifically, if you think the hook in its current form is acceptable for the main page with regards to interestingness), you should check that off, because under the current rules no one can promote an article until everything is checked off, and thus if you don't check it off you might be delaying someone's nomination over an unrelated issue. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Moved to DYK:discussion.--Kevmin § 19:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Cratochelone

-- Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 08:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

You deserve a barnstar and you just got one!

moved

DYK triple nom

Hi Kevmin, could you take another look at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Formosibittacus, Jurahylobittacus, Mongolbittacus? PFHLai has noted that as it is a triple nom, you need to review three articles rather than one. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Insect morphology

You might want to weigh in against the truly awful 3rd paragraph in the lede! I deleted it once, but it came back ... and I can't risk another 3rr trap! Stho002 (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, though I'm not sure if anyone will read the comments on the talk page. My edit to remove the paragraph was reverted by someone who doesn't seem to edit here very often, but I'm not going to risk removing it again, as I'm a bit paranoid about 3rr traps these days ... Stho002 (talk) 07:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Media categorization on commons

As you talked here about doing commons media categorization. Could you take a look on commons at Chelonioidea. I think it should redirect to Sea turtles or vice-versa. I don't know how to redirect a category on commons and would welcome your input if that would be the appropriate thing to do. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 21:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I took a look at them and ended up soft redirecting "Cat:Sea turtles" to "Cat:Chelonioidea", then recategorizing most of the images into either the correct species cats or "Cat:Unidentified Chelonioidea". The three files left should be moved to new Cats (Cat:Sea turtles in art and Cat:Sea turtles n food). I also relinked the family cats the belong in Chelonioidea to the superfamily cat.--Kevmin § 22:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Formosibittacus

--Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)