User talk:Loopy30/Archive 2022

Nomination for deletion of Template:Taxonomy/"Megophrys"[edit]

Template:Taxonomy/"Megophrys" has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle[edit]

I assume you are aware of twinkle, which can help with reverts like this one with a 'restore this version' button. --I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 01:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, but I'll look into it for next time. Loopy30 (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I dream of horses, I do not not see anything related to restoring to an older version under the TW drop down menu (I see CSD, PROD, XFD, RPP, Tag, Last, Since, Since mine, Current, Unlink). If the button you are referring to is in brown text and square brackets above the revsion date/time on an old diff, then I did not know that the 'restore this version' button was provided by Twinkle. In any case, I am not sure how it is any different than using the "undo" button when comparing multiple combined diffs in the history entries. The intent here was to purposely split up these reversions so that the second edit could be labelled as "reverting a good faith edit" while the first edit was labelled "revert vandalism/disruptive editing". 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 12:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Loopy30 Yeah, "restore this version" is in brown text. Your reasoning makes sense, though, at least for doing two reversions; any more than two or three, and you can get into the "unnecessarily clogging up the page history and watchlist pages" territory. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 16:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Archive Scholar vs. JSTOR[edit]

Hello, I see on your user page that you use JSTOR and I'd like to know more about your experience. By my calculations, a good 70 % of the main JSTOR content is now available for everyone at Internet Archive Scholar, with full text search provided e.g. at https://scholar.archive.org/ . The service is still in beta, but I've used it for some source-finding and it seems quite usable to me; I wonder whether that's just my experience. If you have a chance, the next time you'd be looking for a source on Google Scholar or JSTOR or similar, to perform the same search on IA scholar instead, I'd be curious to hear how it ends up. Thanks, Nemo 19:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that I will check enough sources to make a significant sample size, but I will give it a try to compare. Loopy30 (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It doesn't need to be scientific, I'm mostly curious about "real experiences" from people. Nemo 16:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nemo, the availability rate from Internet Archive Scholar was over 80% for over 20 titles, including one older paper that was not available through either JSTOR or my university library. Loopy30 (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Taxobox name parameter in articles for monotypic genera[edit]

"As a monotypic genus, the species name should be placed in the taxobox using the name parameter." I actually didn't know this was a thing before, is there anywhere this is actually stated as a guideline for taxoboxes? Should this be the case too for pages like Brachiosaurus and Barosaurus? (I would have used Tyrannosaurus as an example, but I realise that article lists possible other species.) Monster Iestyn (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines on the use of title names in the speciesbox are somewhat ambiguous in this regard. This is caused in part by the anomaly of having every monotypic taxon article at the lowest rank possible, but then reversing this guideline for genera and having the species article at the (higher) genus rank - with several exceptions, notably articles placed at the common name, or those where the genus name is a dab page. As a result, the speciesbox for the single species is placed on the monotypic genus page. But for consistency, what is good for a vernacular common name should also apply to a scientific binomial if that is also the most commonly used name. With a monotypic genus however, there is little - if any - information on the genus name that is distinct from the rest of the article about the the subject species in question. It is de facto a species level article placed at the genus page title.

As for dinosaurs and many other fossil taxa, I would definitely not extend the case to use speciesboxes with species names for monotypic genera articles. This is because fossil species are most often referred to by their genus name alone, even in academic writing, something that is never done with extant species even in non-scientific writing. Species names for dinosaurs, if used, would often be of the form Brachiosaurus sp., which doesn't really tell the reader anything helpful, which is why an Automatic taxobox at the genus level is more appropriate. Also, within the Dinosaurs and Paleontology Projects it is (I believe) already consistently not applied. Across the Tree of Life projects, animal articles will fairly consistently follow this format (although it is hard to pull out definitive stats), whereas plants articles may or may not consistently follow this format.

Hope this helps, 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining, that makes sense, I did understand them to be de facto species pages at genus page title but never really had any knowledge this trick with the speciesbox was practice at all before. Certainly, the speciesbox documentation has nothing specific to this situation as you highlighted. Funnily enough on plants, I just noticed that Template:Speciesbox's linked example of Aphyllanthes (an extant flowering plant) for Monospecific genera is also doing the same thing as the dinosaur pages I linked. Monster Iestyn (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It should only in very rare cases be necessary to supply a name parameter, unless an English name is to be used. The default is what most taxoboxes use, in my experience. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hoffmannius spinigerus[edit]

Hello, Loopy30,

When you are moving pages, please leave a redirect if there are any redirects pointing to the page that you are moving. Otherwise, legitimate redirects become broken redirects which be deleted by User:AnomieBOT III (see User:AnomieBOT III/Broken redirects). If you leave a redirect, then one of our other Wikipedia bots will change the double redirects for so that they now point to the correct page.

Just check "What links here" and if there are redirects to the page you are moving, either leave a redirect behind during a move or manually correct the redirects yourself so that they point to the new location for the page. This is especially true in the case of page moving vandalism, where there might be dozens of redirects to a popular or long-standing article that has moved to a bad title. Thank you for all of your contributions! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, did that. And, as per usual (with only very rare exceptions), left the box ticked to retain the renamed page title as a redirect. In this case, I had to load the page swap script a couple of times before it would work and even then it did not automatically create the new redirect for me. When I saw the edit automatic edit summary at 14:53, 18 April 2022‎ , I then created the redirect manually at Hoffmannius spinigerus at 14:55. Unfortunately, it seems that the automatic page swap script also failed to keep the "move associated talk page" box ticked as well, something I missed on the initial clean up.

The automatic page swap script usually works like a charm so I'm not sure why it didn't fully work this time. As always, thanks to the wiki-gnomes who notice such things and help to rectify it before a bot comes along and makes things any worse. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary[edit]

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suweon tree frog / Dryophytes suweonensis[edit]

Hi, I notice you redirected Suweon tree frog to Dryophytes immaculatus in 2019, and I wonder if you have any opinions on the fact that Dryophytes suweonensis has now been created (and added to Dryophytes). There is an apparently credible source on the new page, but the author possibly has a CoI, and I don't claim to be any judge of frog taxonomy. TIA. William Avery (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi William Avery, it appears that since 2019, the standard taxonomic reference for frogs used by the AAR project (Amphibian Species of the World (ASW 6.1) hosted by the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH)), has again accepted Dryophytes suweonensis as a distinct species. As such, I should restore the page based on the earlier (pre-2019) text. As far as the editor of the Dryophytes immaculatus article goes, yes he is a frog taxonomist that has published on this species, but he does not appear to be contradicting any of the published reliable sources that are available. Loopy30 (talk) 19:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Merged old (Aug 2019) text from Suweon tree frog into re-created Dryophytes suweonensis article. Also revised incoming redirects. Loopy30 (talk) 11:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pomacentridae[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes use 5th edition of Fishes of the World for taxa above the genus level, not Fishbase. I have reworked your edit to show both with the FotW taxonomy first. Quetzal1964 (talk) 07:19, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Quetzal1964, this was one of a series of edits within the family that were made in enable the incorporation of species of the genus Pycnochromis into the Wikipedia article framework. I shall have to revisit them all to restore the original subfamily info. Loopy30 (talk) 11:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have also created a Pycnochromis stub and started to transfer the species from Chromis to Pycnochromis. Quetzal1964 (talk) 13:44, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have amended Chrominae, referring to the FOTW but restricting it to the four genera as set out in Tang et al 2021 ^[1] and followed by FishBase and Catalog of Fishes. Do you think this works? If so we could do similar for the other subfamilies. Quetzal1964 (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Chrominae are a good combination of both sources so that at least Pycnochromis has a mention in a parent taxon. You can look at revising the other subfamilies if you want, but I would just leave them for now until an update to FotW appears. Loopy30 (talk) 22:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

^ Kevin L. Tang; Melanie L. J. Stiassny; Richard L. Mayden; Robert DeSalle (2021). "Sytematics of Damselfishes" (PDF). Ichthyology & Herpetology. 109 (1): 258–318.

Stub templates[edit]

Hello, when you do taxonomic updates to stub articles and the original stub template becomes inadequate, e.g. when many frogs in Craugastoridae were moved to Strabomantidae and {{Craugastoridae-stub}} became inadequate, could you use the template {{amphibian-stub}}, instead of just removing the stub template altogether? You may have other thoughts, but I find the tracking categories created by stub templates useful. Micromesistius (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Micromesistius, yes I can add the category you suggest. My original thought was to add {{Strabomantidae-stub}}, but as it has not been created yet, other users tend to delete such redlinked categories if I were to add them. If you wish to go back and add the stub templates to my previous edits, I have passed through all the genera in the family except Pristimantis, where I am working my way through alphabetically (currently at Pristimantis helvolus). Do you want to make a new category? Or shall I just use {{amphibian-stub}} for the remaining Pristimantis spp.? Loopy30 (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I created {{Strabomantidae-stub}} (I have not created templates before, but it seems to work) - I think it is warranted, given that there are so many stubs. I would generally argue that a less specific template is better than no stub template. Cheers, Micromesistius (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you are aware...[edit]

There are two of them at it. Silverfishenthusiast41 and Silverfishenthusiast42 cheers, Knitsey (talk) 01:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I reported #42 to AIV and that account is now indef blocked. I reported #41 to SPI as a sock of #42. Loopy30 (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiff Arms Park[edit]

You have previously edited Cardiff Arms Park. An editor has decided to split the article (yet again). I would like to know your view on the new edit....see Talk:Cardiff_Arms_Park#Article_Split_(again). SethWhales^talk 20:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiff Arms Park - a decision[edit]

A decision needs to be made on whether or not to split Cardiff Arms Park - To split or not to split. There are two options which have been agreed. SethWhales^talk 16:42, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spartina alterniflora/ Sporobolus alterniflorus[edit]

Hello, I noticed you moved to Spartina alterniflora page to sporobolus alterniflorus. While a 2014 paper did recommend this change, it has not been widely adopted by the scientific community, and has been argued by many. Note this 2019 paper in support of the genus Spartina. Further more a quick search of the literature will show you that since 2018 around 10,500 papers have been published including Spartina alterniflora as a term, however only 147 have included Sporobolus alterniflorus, and many of these only including it as a synonym of the more widely used Spartina alterniflora. I recommend that this article be returned to its original location in accordance with the literature and clear scientific consensus. Soupe.nb (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Soupe.nb, this discussion should more properly be moved to the article talk page instead of here, and you are welcome to move it there if you wish. The secondary sources used for this taxonomy were Plants of the World (PoWo/IPNI), Tropicos and VASCAN. I noted that Flora of North America (FNA) still uses the older name, but that their taxonomy of this genus had not been updated since 2007. As to be expected, many recent papers have still used the older name (a couple of searches on Web of Science giving about an 8:1 ratio for this) but most of these papers were dealing with aspects other than the taxonomic classification to be used. This alternate usage is prominently noted in the article lede. Until most of the major plant taxonomy databases (which excludes the scrapers - GBIF, COL, EOL, ITIS, etc and the Wikis - iNat) are mostly pointing back to the older term, I recommend that the article be kept at its post-2014 accepted name. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Garasia[edit]

Page is edited by suspected up user Jadeja97 (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Loopy30![edit]

Happy New Year!

Loopy30,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 17:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 17:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[Tang-1] Kevin L. Tang; Melanie L. J. Stiassny; Richard L. Mayden; Robert DeSalle (2021). "Sytematics of Damselfishes" (PDF). Ichthyology & Herpetology. 109 (1): 258–318.

[1]