User talk:Kevmin/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

DYK for Emplastus

--Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Liometopum incognitum

--— Maile (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Re: Gradate

Hi, Kevmin, i'm sorry, i did not have a technical dictionary available to verify this my false conviction before making corrections. These are a few occurrences of the word i was misled. Thanks of the reports, i'll be more careful in the future.--Eumolpo (πῶς λέγεις; = how do you say it?) 13:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Baikuris

Hello! Your submission of Baikuris at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Baikuris

--— Maile (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK

Hello! Your submission of Formica biamoensis at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Dlusskyidris‎

--Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Formica biamoensis

--Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Paradoxosisyra

--— Maile (talk) 12:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Archencyrtus

Hello! Your submission of Archencyrtus at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 19:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Archencyrtus

--Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 17:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Ceratomyrmex

-- Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Bradoponera

Hello! Your submission of Bradoponera at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Amgisseman(BYU) (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Bradoponera

--Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited New Jersey amber, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Segestria. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK for New Jersey amber

--— Maile (talk) 00:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ulteramus

Hello! Your submission of Ulteramus at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 19:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Chamaebatiaria images

Thanks for pointing out that the new leaf image is really unnecessary, because the leaves show pretty well in the taxbox image. However, the taxbox image shows the dry brown seedheads, and so my flower image is needed for a reader to be able to identify the plant. I therefore intend to revert halfway. My general point is that this is not yet a finished, high-quality article where one needs to have the right balance -- at this stage, anything useful & suitable added seems positive. My expertise and interest is in taking really representative photos, making them open, and editing them in where needed. I also add information and references to Wikipedia text, but much more sparingly. There are many, many articles that have lots of text and no figures, and no one deletes that text for that reason. This, and many others I've worked on have better images than text, and I hope other editors will be inspired to upgrade the text.

I'd like to hear your side of the generic argument on this point, before making any further changes. Dcrjsr (talk) 04:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Just in regards to the edit war

Line 8 the Pink was mostly aiming for the Liaoningosaurus information, but she also edited away a sentence explaining Pinacosaurus' ant-eating habits. Can you restore that? User:Falconfly (talk) 00:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Please do revert items

over portal links, they have nothing to do with anything relating to a link, thanks JarrahTree 03:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Ulteramus

--Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Gesomyrmex macrops

Hello! Your submission of Gesomyrmex macrops at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 22:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Cuspilongus

--— Maile (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Formica paleosibirica

--Gatoclass (talk) 03:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Gesomyrmex magnus

--Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Ypresiosirex

--Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Gesomyrmex incertus

As far as I can see, this meets DYK criteria. I added an apostrophe to the hook. Is there another source that could be used in the article? Jonathunder (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Here is a mention of the Bol’shaya Svetlovodnaya site. Sources like that could be used to give context. Jonathunder (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Gesomyrmex macrops

--Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 27 October

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Brasileodactylus page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Taxobox unranked_regnum, unranked_phylum

I see you undid an edit on Trypanosoma antiquus. The taxobox category unranked_regnum (which renders in the article as "unranked") simply means that the taxon is an unranked high-level clade, i.e. not formally a kingdom, but informally understood to be a "kingdom-level" group. We could simply enter these as "unranked", but the availability of taxobox categories like unranked_regnum and unranked_phylum (which are concealed from the reader, in any case) makes it marginally easier for editorss to keep nesting clades in the proper sequence. In the previous form of this article, Excavata was ranked as a kingdom, which is an error (the group was formally erected by Cavalier-Smith as an infrakingdom, and appears as a top-level unranked clade in the influential system of Adl et al., 2005 & 2012). Informal references to "Kingdom Excavata" in the professional literature are fairly common. A search in Google Scholar turns up many results, but none in formal taxonomic hierarchies. The deep phylogeny of eukaryotic supergroups is still unsettled, and Excavata itself is probably not monophyletic (Derelle et al, 2015), so it is best for Wikipedia taxoboxes to present the supergroups as unranked taxa, rather than formal "Kingdoms". Deuterostome (Talk) 16:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Gesomyrmex incertus

--Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Pachycondyla aberrans

--— Maile (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Pachycondyla oligocenica

--Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Kevmin. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Proceratium petrosum

--— Maile (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Proceratium eocenicum

 — Maile  (talk) 00:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Agastomyrma

 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Condonella

 — Maile  (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Suciacarpa

--Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Megalopyge opercularis

Kevmin, you removed the section on Megalopyge opercularis about the caterpillar in popular culture and mentioned "wait at least a year and see if the comparison still exists, flash in the pan memes often do not stick around and are not notable" but I'm afraid you did not review the references in the section. The comparison of the flannel moth caterpillar to Donald Trump's hair began in 2013 and is the first item mentioned. For more than three years now the flannel moth caterpillar has popped up time and time again in news media. What other caterpillar has received this kind of popular attention? It is notable for this reason alone. It is notable because a biologist has dubbed the caterpillar "the Trumpapillar" and it is a name that has garnered a great deal of popular/colloquial use. We don't need to wait a year. We already waited three years to post this. Please do not remove again. That would be vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earthfirstbiologicaldiversity (talk • contribs) 19:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC) `

Talkback

Hello, Kevmin. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Geological deformation of Iceland.
Message added 09:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Quercus hiholensis

--Schwede 66 00:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Acer whitebirdense

--Schwede 66 00:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Impressive articles

Hi, I've been cleaning up automated taxoboxes for species articles, as you've noticed (sorry about omitting |extinct= at one point). I just wanted to say how impressed I've been with the articles you have produced on extinct animals and plants.

(For the record, {{Speciesbox}} should now be used rather than {{Automatic taxobox}}, unless the species has a rank lower than genus as its parent taxon. Also it's not normally necessary to use |binomial= if you do need to use {{Automatic taxobox}} for a species; the correct value will usually be created from |taxon=.) Peter coxhead (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: Thanks, and apologies for the work Ive made you do from over the years. Ive been more consistent with {{Speciesbox}} use now that the |extinct=yes parameters are funcional, before it was rather hit and miss if I had luck with it!--Kev min § 02:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

No apology is necessary; a large part of the problem is that the automated taxobox system has been changed repeatedly over the years (both improvements and bug-fixes), and so has worked differently at different times. Articles I started in 2011 to 2013, when I was largely working on extinct plants, are among those that use {{Automatic taxobox}} when now it's better to use {{Speciesbox}}.

An example of a change I noticed in the last couple of days is that as of right now, |extinct=Yes in taxonomy templates (rather than the lower-case |extinct=yes) doesn't cause the † symbol to appear in automated taxoboxes. I assume that it once did, so it's another little thing to be fixed. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I think I've now fixed the problem that |extinct=Yes wasn't accepted. As you seem to have been the main (?only) editor who used the capitalized form in taxonomy templates, please let me know if you ever notice any taxoboxes that should be displaying † but still aren't for this reason.

Ignore if you're not interested in coding. It seems that originally any value for |extinct= meant "extinct". So at that point |extinct=Yes worked. But then editors starting putting |extinct=no or |extinct=false to mean "not extinct", but actually this still meant "extinct". So fixes were made to check for the values "yes" or "true", but not the capitalized words. So then |extinct=Yes didn't work. When I converted the link creation code to Lua, I just copied what was already there, so the capitalized form continued not to work. I've fixed the Lua code now to convert the values of |extinct= and |always_display= to lower-case first, so |extinct=Yes in a taxonomy template now appears to work in the tests I've done. However, the automated taxobox code is complicated and I might have missed a test somewhere.

Peter coxhead (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Trochodendron drachukii

Hi, this article was at Trochodendron drachuckii, with text that had spellings both with and without a "c". As far as I can tell, although the specific name honours Robert Drachuck, it was published as drachukii. (Google search results for "Trochodendron drachuckii" seem to originate from the Wikipedia article as it was.) So I moved it and corrected the text to be consistent. If this is wrong, please revert the move and fix all spellings to drachuckii. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

"Uncivil"

So that discussion has been closed, but my point remains. Your continual claims of my "uncivilness" need to be addressed, one way or another, i.e. you either stop claiming it, or you actually do something about it in a forum where people can discuss the things you believe to be "uncivil" (sic). To that end, please start a thread at ANI with all the diffs of my "uncivil" (sic) behaviour so we can fix this once and for all. Many thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

The appropriate forum, is at DYK, since that is the first place that the problem is expected to be discussed. If the situation is taken directly to ANI it will be dismissed for lack of any attempts at resolution in the project. A fact you are well aware of. --Kev min § 20:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Aha, so you have nothing at all. In which case, please stop claiming that I'm being "uncivil". And as I noted at the original post, that thread at DYK has been closed, despite your protestations that I am continually "uncivil" (sic) etc. Please now take this to the appropriate forum so we can resolve it. Or otherwise please stop making such claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

No, I will not stop point out when you are uncivil. I do not intend to let you walk all over the project simply because you have a reputation from when you were an admin. You have a very toxic personality that cost you the adminship and you still refuse to see that the problem is you and not all the lesser people around you.--Kev min § 20:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for this accusation to be realised. And the adminship piece, honestly that's so old it's starting to become new again. Your behaviour is far from ideal but I don't go around accusing you of being "uncivil" (sic). Your personal attack ("toxic personality") is noted once again, and if you don't take this any further, then I'll redact all claims you've made of me being uncivil. I have no idea what you mean by "lesser people", perhaps that's a construct you have to delineate between yourself and others, it's certainly nothing I've never thought of here. Perhaps we can help if you feel that there are issues with intra-Wikipedia classes or something, I'm not sure what you mean, but your personal attacks aside, I'd be more than happy to help you if you're struggling with things. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Please take a look at the Edit summaries of your comments at DYK. You do not at any point display good faith, and most are personal attacks. If you do not see it, that is more indication that there is a problem.--Kev min § 20:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

If you actually believe what you're saying you'll do something about it. Otherwise it's just bluster and bad feelings because I've called out some of your work. If that's the case, fine, let's just agree to disagree. If not, and if you actually believe that I'm being "uncivil" (sic), you are duty-bound to do something about. My suggestion is to start a thread at ANI to examine these "uncivil" (sic) comments. Please let me know when you do this, I need to feed the cats and go to bed soon; I'd hate to be caught unawares. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and for the avoidance of doubt, when you say of my edit summaries: "most are personal attacks", you'll need to provide diffs and explanations as to whom I'm personally attacking in each case please. If not, you'll need to retract that accusation. Let me know when you're done. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

By the way, next time you start a discussion about me at a project page, at least have the common decency to let me know. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Acer taggarti

--Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Tsukada davidiifolia

--Vanamonde (talk) 13:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Echinocystis

--— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Acer lincolnense

--— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Acer ferrignoi

--— Maile (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Acer eonegundo

--— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Shirleya

--— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Nuphar carlquistii

--Mifter (talk) 12:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Nyssa spatulata

Hello! Your submission of Nyssa spatulata at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Nyssa spatulata

--Mifter (talk) 12:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Ulmus okanaganensis

Hello! Your submission of Ulmus okanaganensis at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Ulmus okanaganensis

--Mifter (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Koskinonodon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Buettneria. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Odontomachus paleomyagra

Hello! Your submission of Odontomachus paleomyagra at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Odontomachus paleomyagra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rana. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Thrips tabaci

--Mifter (talk) 12:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Magically disappearing Superfamilies

Hi Kevin. You recently edited Template:Taxonomy/Megapodagrionidae by including the superfamily Calopterygoidea as its parent. Which seems correct to me. However, when I look at the taxobox on the page for Megapodagrionidae, Calopterygoidea doesn't show as next highest rank. How did you do that?

Background: Before I edited this taxonomy template, the taxobox for the page showed the (probably out-of-date) superfamily Coenagrionoidea as the parent, and no mention of Suborder Zygoptera. As a user of these taxoboxes I find that with Odonata, a taxobox really needs to show whether it is a Zygoptera (damselfly) or an Anisoptera (dragonfly). Seeing there was no page for the currently accepted superfamily of Calopterygoidea, I figured it was best to show that Megapodagrionidae are damselflies and to give it Zygoptera as the parent. That way the taxobox showed Zygoptera (tick).

And now I see that you have somehow solved the problem of taxonomically referring to the superfamily, without showing it in the taxobox, and instead showing the suborder of Zygoptera. Are you a magician?

John Tann (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @John Tann: The superfamily not displaying is a matter of some cached data needing to update. It would have updated anyway in a few hours or days, but I forced an update by entering the edit window and then saving Megapodagrionidae (making no changes whatsoever, which means my "edit" doesn't show up in the edit history). Now it shows the superfamily, but not the suborder. I know that's not exactly what you want. There are a couple ways to get suborder to display; you can add |display_parents= to the taxobox in an article with an appropriate value (2 gets you from family to superfamily to suborder here). Or you go to the appropriate taxonomy template ({{Taxonomy/Zygoptera}}) and add |always_display==yes. The latter method is probably what you want; that ensures that Zygoptera will display on species pages, without having to add display_parents to every species (and with display parents, there's no way to display the suborder but skip the superfamily). If you really want to skip the red-linked superfamily in family level articles you could use display_parents=0, but that's kind of a wonky solution, and it still won't get you the suborder back if the suborder isn't set to always display. I've gone ahead and set always_display for Zygoptera. It should start showing up in automatic taxoboxes once caches update (or you can force an update with a null edit like I did). Plantdrew (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: Thanks for the detailed explanation. And thanks for setting Zygoptera to always display. It works at my end.

I have a question more about expectations/doing-the-right-thing as a Wikipedia editor. I'm pretty new at this game, and open to guidance.

Question: When I create/edit a Template:Taxonomy/SomeMemberOfZygoptera, can I just put parent as Zygoptera, even if I know the superfamily? My reason for wanting to leave them out whenever possible, is that there are a LOT of taxonomic groupings that are of particular interest to taxonomists, but generally the average punter is only confused and put-off by too much jargon (including me); eg superfamilies, subfamilies, tribes, subgenera, perhaps even subtribe and so on.

I just had a quick look at Odonata superfamilies, of which there are probably 10. Wikipedia has pages for three of those superfamilies, and they are pretty meagre. So I'm getting the sense that there is not much interest by current and past wikipedians in covering these fairly specialised areas of dragonfly taxonomy. So I am wondering is there much point creating a red-link to a superfamily that adds confusion, isn't really very helpful, is prone to changing due to new methods in molecular analysis, and of interest to an elite group of insect taxonomists that understand these concepts and have their own journals and language to discuss them at length.

I'm not suggesting that someone else (who might have a passion for dragonfly superfamilies) couldn't follow my incomplete taxonomy, but I don't want to create or fix pages that add to a general user's confusion.

Do you have any thoughts on this? John Tann (talk) 08:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I prefer to have the intervening levels when i can, since they do describe the full positioning of a species/genus etc relative to others of the order. Remember that most of the time the minor ranks will not show, and that the wiki philosophy is generally that red links encourage others to create the article when they see them. the lack of superfamilies is due more to a lack of enough editors then a lack of enthusiasm for the Odonate taxonomy, combined with a continual effort to write genus level articles first.--Kev min § 19:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@John Tann: as another (talk page stalker), I have more sympathy with your view on superfamilies than Kevmin does, since I do think that taxoboxes should not be over-cluttered with minor ranks. Another key question is whether the superfamilies are well established and not subject to too much change – they certainly aren't stable in other areas of the tree of life. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: @Plantdrew: @Kevmin: Hmmmmm. I suspected that there might be more than one view on this. Of course there is always Wikispecies as a platform with more fine-grained taxonomy and it probably has an appeal to those that really want to know what is going on under the hood.

As for the question about stability, the Odonata superfamilies and make-up of families have been changing quite a lot recently, mostly as a consequence of molecular studies which, I expect, will be continue to be quite a volatile and active area of research. It's an interesting time to see these models unfold, but you'd be hard pressed to keep a Wikipedia overview up-to-date. John Tann (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@John Tann: It's all about stability for me, and I'm generally skeptical that a stable fine-grained taxonomy currently exists for any particular group of organisms. Wikipedia has 330,000+ articles on taxa and a handful of editors keeping all of them up to date. Using automatic taxoboxes rather than manual taxoboxes make it easier to update more finely-grained taxonomies. There's nothing wrong with a red link in the taxobox for a finer grained taxon/clade if it is likely to be stable. Plantdrew (talk) 03:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@John Tann and Plantdrew: my view exactly. In areas I know better, such as cacti and spiders, there are thousands of taxoboxes with totally out of date taxonomies. A deeper problem is that the authors of molecular phylogenetic studies showing that traditional classifications are wrong rarely replace the classification, usually simply producing a cladogram that at best names only some of the larger clades. The only "classification" becomse the cladogram, which is not much use in a taxobox. I don't know if this applies to dragonflies. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead and Plantdrew: Thanks for your contributions to my understanding and for your time. With dragonflies there is active research, but not much activity about phylogenics on wiki pages that I've found. In fact wikipedia dragonflies seems a pretty quiet field, certainly for the Australian fauna, which is probably why I thought I could make a contribution - lots of empty space and not too many obstacles.

Thank you again for following this discussion, much appreciated. John Tann (talk) 10:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead, Plantdrew, and John Tann: I run into very similar problems in the areas that I edit, fossil plant and insect taxa. There is steady research in some areas, but often there is little to no connection between the active phylogenetic work and the extinct taxa that have been described over the past 150 years, making placement of the species and genus articles I write very nebulous at times. The automatic taxoboxes at least reduce the amount of work that is needed to place or update as new data is plublished and then commented on, eg Sphecomyrminae (subfamily or stem group???).--Kev min § 19:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

On the Eurasian cave lion

Hello, Kevin. I hope all is well. You recently reverted my changes to the Panthera leo spelaea page, specifically citing my lack of citations. The purpose of my edit of to undo a change conducted on the page a few weeks ago that removed the title Panthera spelaea from the introductory paragraph on the species. Originally, the introduction read "'Panthera leo spelaea or P. spelaea, commonly known as the European or Eurasian cave lion, is an extinct subspecies of lion." On March 14th, the "or 'P. spelaea'" part was removed. I don't think this was right because the European cave lion has almost unaminiously been acknowledged as its own distinct species since 2014, and I know this because the Wikipedia article specifically goes on to explain it with proper citations. That's why I didn't contribut any new citations: I didn't think it was necessary. There was even already a note next its binomial name on the page explaining why it cited both Panthera leo spelaea and P. spelaea, which is stated as follows: "The authors of the most recent genetic study, Barnett et al.,[1] classify the Eurasian cave lion as a separate species P. spelaea, and as of 2014 it is as commonly accorded full species status as P. spelaea in the scientific literature, according to Google Scholar." I was simply trying to resotre what was already there, and because subsequent revisions occured after March 14th I had to do this manually. I hope this clarifies why I did this and why I did not cite anything in the revision. If there was another issue with it I am missing, please let me know. 101Animals (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Odontomachus paleomyagra

--Mifter (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Aphaenogaster dlusskyana

--Mifter (talk) 01:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Nematus spiraeae

Sorry about that, had completed my review and didn't see the EC. All yours. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Hoplocampa testudinea

-- Mifter (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Cephalotes caribicus

--Mifter (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Cephalotes alveolatus

--IronGargoyle (talk)) 05:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Cephalotes dieteri

--— Maile (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Cephalotes hispaniolicus

--— Maile (talk) 00:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Aneuretellus

--Alex Shih ^Talk 01:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

"RFC regarding the current DYK Rule 3A "interesting to a Broad audience""

Just thought you should know that this was archived without conclusion because no posts were made for quite some time, so a bot binned it. If you cared about it, perhaps you should reinstate it, or unarchive it or something, and then pursue a conclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Pachycondyla succinea

--— Maile (talk) 00:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Electromyrmex

--— Maile (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Linguamyrmex

--Alex Shih ^Talk 04:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Rovno amber

--Alex Shih ^Talk 02:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Alicodoxa

--Alex Shih ^Talk 02:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Odontomachus spinifer

 Alex Shih^Talk 00:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

"Darwinius" edit

Hello, Kevin,
Thanks for the tip. I'm not a native english user, and i was really not bad intentioned. I'll pay attention next time :P (That was my first edit on en-wikipedia). – Amom Lins (talk) 01:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Amom Lins: No worry, its a common mistake for those not familiar with the terms. :D --Kev min § 02:26, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Odontomachus pseudobauri

--Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK review for Rallicola, Apterygon

Hey, I just wanted to make sure you saw that I did the second QPQ; is there anything else I need to do for my DYKN? Thanks! Umimmak (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Notification of ANI post

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Underlying lk (talk • contribs)

DYK for Bombus trophonius

--Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Chronostratigraphy of Colorado Template

Since you said that the Template:Chronostratigraphy of Colorado was too long I condensed it into a nested form that won't overwhelm readers with the entire stratigraphic column at once. It's live again on Green River Formation. Do you approve of the changes? Abyssal (talk) 06:36, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Abyssal: The thing is it doesnt really belong on the formation pages, as no one is typically going to be looking for something like that on a general encyclopedia...--Kev min § 19:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Hang on, it's currently under heavy construction. Abyssal (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Kevmin. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Extinction categories

You said last night that you feel like categorizing taxa by the time of their extinction is WP:OR. Do you think this would be remedied by renaming the categories from "extinctions" to "last appearances" to correspond with the first appearances categories? Abyssal (talk) 15:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Abyssal: It woulds be only changing the problem. Those two category systems are making the factual assertion that that is definitively the very specific time at which the Genus/species evolved. We dont and cant ever know that is factually true, and its OR for Wiki to assert it with the category structure.--Kev min § 16:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

--[[User:Kevmin|<font color="#120A8F">Kev</font>]][[User talk:Kevmin|<font color="#228B22">min</font>]] [[Special:Contributions/Kevmin|§]]

: --Kev min §

to

--[[User:Kevmin|<span style="color: #120A8F;">Kev</span>]][[User talk:Kevmin|<span style="color: #228B22;">min</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Kevmin|§]]

: --Kev min §

—Anomalocaris (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: Changed--Kev min § 20:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Liometopum imhoffii

--Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ascalaphidae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diurnal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Tyrannomyrmex alii

--Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Zherichinius

Hello! Your submission of Zherichinius at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Ruslik_Zero 17:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Nylanderia pygmaea

-- Gatoclass (talk) 12:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Mesembrinella caenozoica

--Gatoclass (talk) 12:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Usomyrma, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Russian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Usomyrma

--— Maile (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Zherichinius

--Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Grammar & spelling

@ Kevmin, what is incorrect in "Media related to … at Wikimedia Commons"?

I would have written "Media related to … at Wikimedia Commons". But, though I try, I cannot totally avoid to write "with a German accent".

Somtimes I even do mistakes, deliberately: If in the name of a church, the saint or even more than one Saint is mentioned with supplements of the name(s), I prefer to write the word church or cathedral without capital initial letter. Meanwhile, I've got accustomed to use the capital letter only, if the name of the church bulding does not contain a patrocinium (name of a saint), "Market Church" but "St Mary church" or "St Mary's church".--Ulamm (talk) 09:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Im going to be honest, its a moot point, since the banner you want to put on the page is NOT within policy.--Kev min § 14:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

It was you, who showed and almost recommended me the template "

Media related to this bulding at Wikimedia Commons",

but critisized "that the grammar and spelling in the template is just not right".--Ulamm (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

See my reply on talk:List of gothic buildings. Your banner is superseded.--Kev min § 16:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Chalcidoid fossils

Just to clarify: Hong's new taxon names were not validly published under the ICZN, so none of the new names he introduced in that book are available or valid. It's technicality, yes, but it's a HUGE one. As far as the scientific community is concerned, those names don't exist; just because it is in print doesn't mean it complies with the rules, and databases that simply cull names out of the literature should not be propagating or perpetuating them without critical review. It's not your fault, but it can be hard to get things like that purged from online sources. Dyanega (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

a follow-up: I tracked down a contact e-mail for the PBDB, and sent the folks there a message. As an ICZN Commissioner, this all falls within my mandate, so I'll see if I can get those names either flagged as unavailable, or taken down. Dyanega (talk) 02:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what made the names fail to comply with ICZN nomenclature rules when it was published?--Kev min § 04:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

There was a new Article added to the Code on January 1st, 2000, which did not exist when Hong started working on his book. Prior to 2000, new taxon descriptions were not required to explicitly state where the type specimen(s) were located, but then we added this: "Every new specific and subspecific name published after 1999, except a new replacement name (a nomen novum), for which the name-bearing type of the nominal taxon it denotes is fixed automatically [Art. 72.7], must be accompanied in the original publication: (16.4.1) by the explicit fixation of a holotype, or syntypes, for the nominal taxon [Arts. 72.2, 72.3, 73.1.1, 73.2 and Recs. 73A and 73C], and, (16.4.2) where the holotype or syntypes are extant specimens, by a statement of intent that they will be (or are) deposited in a collection and a statement indicating the name and location of that collection (see Recommendation 16C)." Hong failed to comply with 16.4.2, and - from what I can see - all 300+ names in that book were instantly rendered unavailable. Prior to yesterday, I had only heard about the wasp names, and everyone who studies wasps (including about 10 close colleagues) knew that those names were no good; I had no idea that Hong published an entire book covering the entire insect fauna, and no idea that there was a paleo database that listed them all as available names. If people are following the PBDB and using the other non-wasp names in that book, it's a disaster. As an aside, another colleague who I mentioned this to pointed out that the family Kuschelchalcididae refers to aa wasp that is not in the Chalcidoidea at all, and that this has been published. As soon as I can confirm this, I'll be removing that name from the chalcid wasp page, as well. What a mess. Dyanega (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Dyanega: Got it! Sad that Hong didnt state the repositories for the type specimens. I can say for certain that Myrmecologists do reference the taxa erected by Hong, typically mentioning that they are named, but in need of revision do to poor illustration and description; and that the taxa are listed in Antweb.org along with the Paleobiology database and EDNA fossil insect database (search for Amber Insects of China).--Kev min § 16:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Mazon Creek fossil beds

You undid a pronunciation on this page and requested a reliable source.

My sister-in-law is a Paleontologist, a professor at Michigan State. https://ees.natsci.msu.edu/people/faculty/brandt-danita/ https://msu.edu/~brandt/

We live near Mazon Creek, she grew up in this area, and she has done field work at Mazon Creek. We are familiar with the correct, local pronunciation and she is frustrated that it is often not pronounced correctly in her professional circles.

I have nothing I can link to, however, to prove what we know is correct. It is a primary source situation. We live here. We know how to pronounce it.

Revision as of 01:05, 11 August 2017 (edit) (undo) (thank) Kevmin (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 794939868 by Jamalaka (talk) Can you provide reliable sources for this?)

Jamalaka (talk) 01:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)jamalaka

Why revert an improvement?

I do not understand you editsummary. Please clarify. - DePiep (talk) 18:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

It was not an improvement, and it was not at ANY point discussed with WP:DYK before being made. You have been asked by a myriad of editors in DKY to not make changes that are not discussed and approved.--Kev min § 03:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK Boltonimecia

Hello! Your submission at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! dawnleelynn^(talk) 21:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Boltonimecia

--Alex Shih (talk) 01:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Cephidae and Cephoidea

My mistake. I assumed the superfamily was monotypic (according to the article) and didn't bother to check for extinct families. Thanks for straightening it out.

Bob Webster (talk) 05:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Edibobb: No worried, and my apologies if the revert and edit summaries were overly pointed or aggressive!--Kev min § 15:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Zatania electra

--Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Amblyomma spenodonti

Hi! Thanks for reviewing the page that I nominated - I wasn't sure if I commented on that page or here.... I have other images on wikimedia - I could propose those - they are less cropped versions of the same image, bu should be clearer (although smaller ticks!) How can I get these added to the review? Markanderson72 (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@Markanderson72: No worries, the alt looks great, so Ill tick the nomination as good to go there. The hard part about dyk images is they have to be distinct and very clear when viewed as a 100px thumbnail, so the images you have on commons will still not be distinct enough. The majority of my fossil insect nominations are with an image but less than 1% actually get placed in the image slot of a dyk queue.--Kev min § 20:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@Markanderson72:As an example, I'm working on a double nomination right now of Enischnomyia and Vetufebrus. As you can see the Enischnomyia image ends up being the clearer of the two at 100px, so its the one Ill use in the nom, but if the hook isnt picked for the image slot, then it will be run without the image.--Kev min § 21:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you - that is really helpful for the future, including for reviews, which I will need to begin doing soon! Markanderson72 (talk) 22:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Proetida, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cyamella (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks For Trilobite Work

Thanks very much for your current sorting through trilobite order articles. Eventually we need to go through Proetidae, and sort out which genera are in Proetidae sensu strictu, and which genera are supposed to be in Phillipsiinae.--Mr Fink (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Apokryltaros: That's what I started to try to do this morning actually, and from what I'm seeing the merge of the two families hasn't been followed by other authors after its proposal and the phylogenetic paper in 2015. So I'm slowly going through Gon and checking each genus for placement. My main purpose has really been to convert over to automaric taxoboxes. The cleaning is just a side result.--Kev min § 12:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Right. That reminds me, I need to ask Sam Gon if he has any references of Dudu.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Apokryltaros: How good is your German? Trilobiten aus dem hohen Ober-Karbon oder Unter-Perm von Alaska. Senckenbergiana lethaea 66: 445-485 and [Trilobiten aus dem Karbon von Nötsch und aus den Karnischen Alpen Österreichs.--Kev min § 04:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Sadly minimal.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Redirect for "Gitarra"

Hi, you have changed the redirect for "Gitarra" which used to be pointing to the German classical Guitarrist Heike Matthiesen. Gitarra has been her Social Media moniker for over a decade. Would you agree on a "you have reached the page of the German Guitarrist Heike Matthiesen, if you were looking for the Trilobite XXX, please see here" line in her article that links back to the Trilobite page?

Pjakobs (talk) 07:54, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

If that is the case, then the moniker should be cited in the article on her, though I would first ask how many English language readers were using that moniker to search for her. The trilobite genus Gitarra Gandl, 1968 has that specific name in already, and three incoming links to the redirect page are for the trilobite, with none for or related to Heike Matthiesen. A look at the page veiw stats for the redirect shows a very low hit level already, so I would say it would be better to have the looking for flag at the Gitarra genus article rather then the opposite.--Kev min § 11:46, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion as well. Albeit it might be a little confusing to find a Trilobite when you were looking for a person.-- Pjakobs (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Less confusion level than looking for the trilobite and being redirected to Heike Matthiesen, which doesnt mention "Gitarra" at all from what I see. It is more natural to have the redirect page expanded into a genus article for the trilobite with the hat note pointing to Matthiesen, though as I noted very very little traffic goes to the redirect at all (18 hits total in a 2 month period, when Matthiesen had 116 in the same time frame).--~~

Disambiguation link notification for July 25

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Gitarra (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Westphalian

Proetida (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Yuanjia

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Opera hooks interest

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Opera hooks interest. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Acanthoceratinae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Acanthoceras (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)