User talk:Pvmoutside/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page blanking[edit]

Hi Pvmoutside. I noticed you've been blanking pages like Vinagarra. Generally, if you would like to see an article deleted, it should be nominated for deletion through a process such as WP:AFD, WP:PROD, or WP:CSD. Page blanking, or editing the page so that it has no content, does not actually delete a page, and under normal circumstances, it should be avoided. I think this is probably why the other user is falsely mistaking your edits for vandalism. Let me know if you have any questions about the deletion process. Mz7 (talk) 17:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to Mz7's note above, once a PROD is removed by an editor, it cannot be replaced (see WP:DEPROD). You will need to take the article to AfD if you want to pursue deletion.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Persa incolorata[edit]

Hi Pvmoutside, the convention for monotypic genera is for the article to be at the genus name unless the species article has a common name title. As such, could you re-visit Persa incolorata? 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was also told that the convention included moving to species when a word definition appeared other than strictly the genus name. So the previous title for Persa was Persa (genus), which I believe Peter said should be moved. See note on Gregoria above....Pvmoutside (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I stand corrected. I re-read WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA and note the exception for when the genus name needs to be disambiguated as it was in this case. Loopy30 (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry[edit]

Sorry about going after you on the Vinagarra category. I didn't do the research I needed to. That was my mistake. Happy editing! --HighFlyingFish (talk) 05:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

not a problem at all....Pvmoutside (talk) 10:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fish species[edit]

FishBase is the agreed reference for fish taxonomy, at the species and genus levels, but you appear to be singlehandedly following Catalog of Fishes (see Pterocapoeta maroccana), I haven't noted any consensus to change that. Quetzal1964 (talk) 19:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought, then a discussion ensued and it was determined Catalog of Fishes was more up to date. See Wikiproject Fishes...Pvmoutside (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I read that too but my interpretation differed somewhat, the conclusion I took from it was that in some cases one is more up to date than the other and vice versa. I don't think it reached a consensus to replace FishBase as the reference. Quetzal1964 (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From the Wikiproject talk: "Fishbase is far more comprehensive, also covering ecology and alike, which is why I specifically said taxonomy (the one place where CoF and FB can be compared). I keep a fairly close look on newly described species and have never seen a case where FB was faster than CoF. Further, when FB makes taxonomic updates, updates to their remaining sections are often delayed: An example is the spotted eagle ray where FB split off A. ocellatus in 2012, but only just (in late 2017 and ongoing) began updating distribution, ecology and alike." Given that statement, and a few like it, my pref is to use CoF whenever it differs from FB.....If there is specific taxonomy where someone believes FB is in the lead, then it certainly can be discussed.....Pvmoutside (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The project page still says "Taxonomy at the level of genera and species should follow FishBase. Higher-level classification should follow the 2016 fifth edition of Fishes of the World by J.S. Nelson, T.C. Grande and M.V.H. Wilson for consistency. If applicable, disputes in classification should be noted in article text". No consensus has been reached.Quetzal1964 (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Moved discussion to Wikiproject Fish....Pvmoutside (talk) 01:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic taxoboxes[edit]

I can see that you often convert taxoboxes to automatic. I have just created Atorellidae and I used an automatic taxobox but it is wrong, because I didn't know how to deal with the fact that the family was monotypic. Can you help? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Hi Cwmhiraeth, since the family is monotypic, I have moved it to the genus page (Atorella). For automatic taxobox, I added 
| parent_authority = Vanhöffen, 1902
. This shows the describing author of the next level up, in this case family. To make the family name bold in the automatic taxobox, I then linked the family name to the genus name in the template ([[1]]) using 
|link=Atorella|Atorellidae
. Also, I deleted the default line in the Taxonomy template that is set to "extinct=yes". Hope this helps, Loopy30 (talk) 11:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. So with a monotypic genus, you list the single species at genus level, and with a monotypic family, the article is also listed at genus level. I will have a go at Paraphyllinidae (1 genus, 3 species), under the title Paraphyllina. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a bit confusing. Well, I have gotten confused often anyways! An article for a monotypic taxon is placed at the lowest level, but no lower than genus, unless a monotypic genus has the species at a common (vernacular) name or the genus name needs to be disambiguated. Then, the article name remains at the species level (see (WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA). 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 13:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the guidelines at WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA (and the same for plants) are confusing, and regularly confuse editors who come across this issue. Sigh... Peter coxhead (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Luperosaurus macgregori) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Luperosaurus macgregori, Pvmoutside!

Wikipedia editor Domdeparis just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

autopatrol not working

To reply, leave a comment on Domdeparis's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Dom from Paris (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Banggai jungle flycatcher) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Banggai jungle flycatcher, Pvmoutside!

Wikipedia editor Onel5969 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please provide sources for this article.

To reply, leave a comment on Onel5969's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Onel5969 TT me 15:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Parasinilabeo microps) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Parasinilabeo microps, Pvmoutside!

Wikipedia editor Nick Moyes just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please could you use the reference you cited to provide some useful information on description, habitat, IUCN status, etc?

To reply, leave a comment on Nick Moyes's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Nick Moyes (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Problems about Sitta insularis[edit]

IUCN is recognising Sitta insularis as a specific status, and it is already split as a article. but IOC is still recognising insularis as a subspecies of Sitta pusilla, should we delete Bahama nuthatch?

I fixed it.....most still consider it a subspecies incuding IOC....Thanks for letting me know...Pvmoutside (talk) 12:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HELLO THERE[edit]

Recently there are some users are classifying the species into another genus or seperating species according to the IUCN, but IOC is the standard we follow, can we make sure nothing like this will happen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samweithe4 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress#Chronological order of polls[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress#Chronological order of polls. —GoldRingChip 12:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

name changes[edit]

I've pinged you twice at talk pages, some time ago. cygnis insignis 18:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing your replies? cygnis insignis 13:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snake pages[edit]

Did you mean to redirect Leptotyphlops debilis, Leptotyphlops nasalis, Leptotyphlops natatrix, and Leptotyphlops variabilis to non-existent pages, or did you intend on moving them to rename them? Right now it's the former, and they're showing up as broken redirects. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

not sure what to do except to create new pages for the red links, but the redirected pages are now considered conspecific with the pages not created yet...…Pvmoutside (talk) 12:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
may make more sense to restore the pages and rename them……..thanks....Pvmoutside (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me, thanks. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strigiformes[edit]

Hi Pvmoutside, I imagine from these edits that you are knowlegeable on the subject. As things keep changing, could you check if the statement "The Sibley-Ahlquist taxonomy also includes IN the Strigiformes the species usually classified in the Caprimulgiformes" here and the inclusion of the Caprimulgiformes in the Strigiformes here is outdated? I say this because in the articles on the three species included in the Caprimulgiformes it does not say anything about this. Thank you, regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, boy! looks like I did not notice that I had moved from ptwiki to enwiki!. Give me a minute to translate the message. Will be right back. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Arachnids described in' cats[edit]

I'm looking to standardize the 'spiders described in' cat tree, and I see 4 stray 'arachnids described in' cats among them -

  1. Category:Arachnids described in 1757
  2. Category:Arachnids described in 1758
  3. Category:Arachnids described in 1775
  4. Category:Arachnids described in 1802

I'm thinking of CfD'ing these 4, but only if their contents are ok to be diffused into their respective 'spiders' cats. If so, I can do it, just wanted to check with you first.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tom.Reding: the articles in the middle two categories (the others only have subcats) are not about spiders, so would have to be moved upwards, not downwards. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
have at it....Pvmoutside (talk) 00:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tom.Reding: ok, all four categories are now empty. I leave the CfD'ing to you. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:56, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic edit[edit]

Hi, I'm not sure what you intended by this edit. Maybe you meant that the genus Traversia is now synonymous with the genus Kuiornis? If so, the change can't be achieved in this way because the automated taxobox system relies on the name of the template and the name of the taxon matching. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Peter......I must of missed one when I converted to speciesbox.....Pvmoutside (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Genus parameter in Automatic taxobox[edit]

Hi, |genus= isn't recognized in {{Automatic taxobox}}; you must use |taxon= (e.g. at Ceratopipra). It appears to work because in the absence of |taxon=, the taxobox uses the page title. Consistency with {{Automatic taxobox}} is why I prefer to use |taxon= in {{Speciesbox}}, rather than |genus=+|species= (although Plantdrew disagrees). Peter coxhead (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine viper[edit]

Please see Talk:Palestine viper. There was some opposition expressed in 2015 when I proposed the same move. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for pointing that out. We'll see if it happens again....Pvmoutside (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you reopen the discussion, now that you are aware of it, your tendentious edit warring, making a lie of citations, and refusal to discuss changes is not helpful (excepting any momentary buzz you obtain from non-improvements in our articles). cygnis insignis 05:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Moving the page against a previous decision without further discussion was wrong. "Common" in WP:COMMONNAME does not mean the vernacular, English name, but the most commonly used name, which is clearly the scientific name. The page should be moved back. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Cephalopods decribed in 1802[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Cephalopods decribed in 1802 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:40, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with Category:Cephalopods described in 1802 fyi.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anemones described in 1817 has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Anemones described in 1817, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Range[edit]

Check this out: {{USCongressOrdinalRange}}. I just used it here. —GoldRingChip 13:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arizona's 9th district[edit]

Sorry about my reversion; thanks for fixing it. It was a slip of a finger on a button, but I didn't realize it had completed. —GoldRingChip 15:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Defeated for re-election"[edit]

Why not use "Lost re-election." which is simpler? —GoldRingChip 15:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Pvmoutside. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AZ-9 Picture[edit]

Hi, I'd just like to ask why my picture was removed. —Astroleaf15 17:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know...I didnt remove it.....Pvmoutside (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Astroleaf15: That was me. The image doesn't give any context so there are no state boundaries, municipalities, or anything by which the viewer can understand what it's a picure of. Maybe you could tweak it (and the others you've made, e.g., Alabama) to add that necessary context? —GoldRingChip 18:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speciesbox parameters[edit]

Hi, I'm not sure whether you've caught up with some recent activity at Template talk:Speciesbox, but we were trying to implement the documented behaviour of the template, namely that |taxon= had priority over |genus=+|species=, which in turn had priority over the page title. However, the updated template produced a lot of errors, because there were many pages with |taxon=+|species= and other unexpected (at least by me!) combinations, so I had to revert the updates. I see that you have been using |taxon=+|species=, e.g. at Crested bellbird. For now, we're just tracking unexpected combinations in the "Speciesbox" categories at Category:Taxobox cleanup and fixing them. Eventually these combinations won't work. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Peter for clarifying. So what is the preferred method now for listing species in speciesboxes? should I list them as taxon putting genus and species together, both for monotypic genera and for genera with multiple species?....Pvmoutside (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's entirely a matter of choice. The point of providing |taxon= was to make it more familiar to editors who mainly use {{Automatic taxobox}} which only uses |taxon=. I tend to use |taxon= most of the time; Plantdrew prefers the two parameters. For a monotypic genus, there's a logic to
| genus = ...
| parent_authority = ...
| species = ...
| authority = ...
I think one source of confusion for some editors when using two parameters is that in a manual taxobox, |species= gives the (abbreviated) binomial, whereas here it's just the specific name/epithet. The really important thing is not to mix |taxon= with |genus=+|species=, because (a) this can lead to inconsistency (b) it confuses the automatic italicization code. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer |genus=+|species= because it always works. When a taxonomy template has a disambiguator, |taxon= will not work. If people who aren't very familiar with the Species are consistently seeing |taxon=, they may have trouble figuring out how to make the Speciesbox work when the taxonomy template is disambiguated. Plantdrew (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Plantdrew: yes, I understand this rationale. I do actually want to get |taxon=genus (disambig) species working, but it will be easier to do this if more of the code is converted to Lua first, because text processing is then much easier. The ideal, it seems to me, is that |taxon= and |genus=+|species= work in exactly the same way.
Interestingly, the largest number of clean-ups I've done are of the combination |taxon=genus+|species=specific name/epithet. I think this is attractive because {{Automatic taxobox}} for the genus would have |taxon=genus only, so to convert to {{Speciesbox}} it seems natural to just add |species=specific name/epithet. This does suggest that editors approach {{Speciesbox}} from {{Automatic taxobox}}, although the former has almost four times as many transclusions. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wiedomyini[edit]

It looks as though you first put the taxonomy template at Wiedomyini instead of Template:Taxonomy/Wiedomyini. I tried to get it deleted quickly, but it was declined. Could you fix it please? Peter coxhead (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter...I don't have the capability to delete articles, so I blanked it....its as far as i can go.....Pvmoutside (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you put {{db-g7|rationale=created in error}} on the page, it will get deleted. For rapid deletion it has to be done by the person who created it. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Preview for automatic taxoboxes/speciesboxes[edit]

Just a small thing: could you preview rather than saving to check first if a taxon doesn't yet fit into the automatic taxobox system? Otherwise it gets added as a Category:Automatic taxobox cleanup alert. Thanks! —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 15:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is really helpful. Preview and then create the taxonomy template before saving the article. I spend a lot of time doing null edits on perfectly good articles to remove them from the cleanup tracking categories. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Pennsylvania's 5th congressional district special election listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2018 Pennsylvania's 5th congressional district special election. Since you had some involvement with the 2018 Pennsylvania's 5th congressional district special election redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. VietPride10 (talk) 07:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Greetings[edit]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Pvmoutside, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019.
Happy editing,
Darwinek (talk) 23:15, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

January 3, 2018[edit]

Yes, but you must take discernment on days such as these. I spent two hours editing pages to account for the change. It's impossible to do it all at once. Either way, something is going to be incorrect: either a page with outdated information or a page that has added information too early. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholemacgregor (talk • contribs) 17:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page move request 2[edit]

Hello Pvmoutside, could you move the monotypic taxon page Cariacotrichea to its genus page Cariacothrix? The genus page is currently a redirect with minimal page history. Thanks, Loopy30 (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

all set....Pvmoutside (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, Loopy30 (talk) 02:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Glossy-backed drongo[edit]

Hello, Pvmoutside,

Thanks for creating Glossy-backed drongo! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

This has been tagged for one issue.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Boleyn}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Fanti drongo[edit]

Hello, Pvmoutside,

Thanks for creating Fanti drongo! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

This has been tagged for one issue.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Boleyn}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated taxobox parameters[edit]

The only parameter for genera upwards in an Automatic taxobox is |taxon=. Parameters like |genus= which you added to some are ignored completely, and the taxobox falls back on the page name. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

plantdrew left a note for me to use genus as much as possible for the auto taxoboxes (including monotypics)...so which one is it?....Pvmoutside (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe he meant {{Speciesbox}}. This accepts either |taxon= (e.g. |taxon=Panthera leo) or |genus=+|species= (e.g. |genus=Panthera+|species=leo). Plantdrew and I have opposite preferences; I prefer to use |taxon= in both kinds of automated taxobox, because I'm less likely to make a mistake. He prefers to use |genus=+|species= in {{Speciesbox}}, because at present there are situations in which you have to. But |taxon= is required in {{Automatic taxobox}}. |genus=, |species=,|familia=, etc. are completely ignored, as you can test by giving them nonsense values. It falls back on the page name. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly, at one point, you were putting |taxon= (with the genus name) and |species= (with the epithet) in Speciesboxes. It worked, but was inelegantly mixing the two systems that function in Speciesboxes (i.e. either |genus=+|species= or |taxon= with the binomial). As tracking categories were implemented |taxon=+|species= was being flagged as an error. You can use whichever system you prefer in Speciesboxes (but |taxon= will not work when the taxonomy template for the genus is disambiguated). I hope that didn't leave you more confused. Plantdrew (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aside: when {{Speciesbox}} is converted to Lua, |taxon=genus (disambig) epithet will be made to work, but as Plantdrew says, it doesn't now. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That clarifies....Thank-you both...Pvmoutside (talk) 11:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
so here's an issue that came up today....subfamilies....some groupings have them, some do not. If a particular family grouping has some subfamilies listed, while others do not is it better to ignore the entire group and move to family only?....otherwise if you use taxon on the subfamilies you have, it will chain it as a genus, rather than a subfamily, and how does one fix Brachyphylla and Carolliinae.....Pvmoutside (talk) 12:55, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The taxoboxes in the two srticles were wrong because the rank was set to genus in a couple of subfamily taxoboxes; now corrected. Whether or not you include subfamilies in taxonomy templates is a matter of choice, but I would always use them if there are good refs to support them. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're asking. Is it that some genera in a particular family show a subfamily, and other genera in that same family lack a subfamily? I would strive for consistency; either include subfamily for all genera or for none (with that decision being based on whether or not a good source for the subfamily classification can be fond). Plantdrew (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wish[edit]

Hello. Help improve for article Maureen Wroblewitz. Thanks you. Arina56 (talk) 12:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore. User is a sock puppet. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

question about automatic taxobox[edit]

Hi Pvmoutside--I know you regularly edit taxonomy templates, and I have a question about one. I've been working on the Megabat article, and its superfamily is a redirect to that article, as it is the only family of the superfamily. I believe there's a way to make the superfamily Pteropodoidea simply bolded in the taxobox rather than as a link, but I can't find that documentation readily. I know how to do it with the taxobox template--do you know how to do it with the automatic taxobox? Enwebb (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Enwebb, everything looks OK in the auto taxoboxes....but if you needed to make changes, you would link to the actual existing article, add a bar, then type in the article you'd like to name. For example Megabat should go first, then the bar, then Pteropodoidea

Lack of edit summaries; unexplained blanking of substantive content[edit]

Hi Pvmoutside. The recent series of edits at blue nuthatch is concerning. Much of it starts and ends with the lack of an edit summary. There really are very few types of edits that are so self-explanatory that they don't require one, and even ones that might fit that characterization are probably better with one as a matter of basic transparency and good practice. Looking at your edit in two parts, I'll start with where you are removing automatic infobox parameters that are currently explicit. Okay. Fine. Except that it's really not.

For one, unless you can explain how it's substantive, it registers to me as a mostly useless edit—like removal of whitespace or bypassing a redirect with no change in display. Putting that aside, the fact that what you're doing is simply removing automatic parameters is not at all clear and far from self-explanatory. After seeing the unexplained removal of parameters pop up in their watchlist, and then reviewing the diff, many editors, in other words, in order to understand that your mute edit was not blanking substantive content, would have to compare the infobox's output display against the version before your edit. That is a bad result.

Rather than just vexxing and likely wasting of other user's time, much more problematic is the second part of your edit, which was the mangling of the infobox image caption. That's just registers as unexplained blanking. Without an edit summary to reveal any reason behind it, even if a poor one, it requires explanation, and an editor would not be unwarranted in treating it as vandalism. Having looked at some of your edits, I'm sure it's not done in bad faith, so playing devil's advocate my bet is that this caption change arises from some misplaced idea that stating the name of the species in relation is redundant, even if your removal left a horrible sounding, awkward fragment behind.

In any event, having seen you do that, I didn't have to go back far in your edits to find your mangling of other captions, as well as all manner of other types of unexplained blanking that could not be farther from self-explanatory—that likewise, without an edit summary explanation, register as simply blanking that you should expect to be reverted on sight, if not treated as vandalism by content creators finding substantive content simply removed for no discernible reason. For example, these unexplained, edits to Sphaerodactylus macrolepis. Why? I'm sure it's not vandalism but sure looks like it in a vacuum, and certainly something that should be reverted in the absence of explanation.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the inquiry. On your two issues: First the auto taxoboxes, a number of us are moving species in all taxa from a standard taxobox to an automatic taxobox. It helps a lot in maintenance, having to avoid duplicate work, and provides a more complete and standardized classification. Regarding removing the actual species or common name from the image caption, it avoids duplication with the title. The species is already identified in the title, and i'm standardizing as most species images are not identified, unless there are multiple species on the imqge, or the species is classified to subspecies, for example, in which I leave the caption.....Pvmoutside (talk) 13:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the user is fighting a war on binomial nomenclature and believes they have special dispensation to pursue their righteous cause. Prepare to see more of them on your watchlist. Notice there is no response on lack of edit summaries, they want lots of attention to their trivial or damaging edits. cygnis insignis 13:48, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, that is entirely non-reponsive to my inquiry Pvmoutside. Standardizing infoboxes in no way explains why you are not leaving edit summaries when doing so, or addresses any of the problems I have identified with failing to do so, including the waste of other user's time, the fact it's not self-explanatory; nor the any reason behind the other blanking your engaging in without any explanation, such as the example diff I provided to an article change where you removed a sentence from the lead identifying other locations the species inhabits, and the see also section in its entirety. What does that have to do with standardizing infoboxes? In sum, you have not responded at all to the thrust of my post. As to the image captions, it is not redundant; any removal, even if warranted (and I disagree it is here) must be done in a manner that does not leave behind a mess, which is what your edit did--leaving the fragment "at Cibodas Botanical Garden, Java, Indonesia" as the caption; and the fact that other articles don't contain some type of content, which you provide as the seeming basis for the removal of the caption, is not a valid rationale for that removal when it is included. You might as well have said 'most articles don't contain good citations so I'm removing citations from these FAs because...standardizing'. Same logic.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that may be my fault, I pointed out that changing or removing content with citations to say something else is fraudulent, so removing the citation as well solves that problemette. cygnis insignis 18:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC) Oh again, I see you were only suggesting that as an absurd comparison, but they actually do that as they go out on their forays. cygnis insignis 19:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
so i'm confused.....the only thing i'm removing is the duplicate species name as listed on the title page. I hardly call that a mess....please clarify....Pvmoutside (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, Pvmoutside asked me to look at this thread.

There seem to be two issues which are getting confused here:

  • Pvmoutside's failure to leave edit summaries. This is a valid point; we can all forget (well, I certainly sometimes do), but it's clearly policy that editors should leave edit summaries, so this seems a fair comment.
  • Whether Pvmoutside made unjustified edits. I can only say those I've looked at seemed fine to me. Indeed, as regards redundancy in captions, I would have gone further (and have done so in one case). We don't repeat the clear topic of the article in section headings and captions. In an article about the blue nuthatch we don't have a section title "Taxonomy of Sitta azurea", so nor do we say under the image in a taxobox with the heading "Blue nuthatch" that it's a blue nuthatch – what else would it be?

Peter coxhead (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What edit summary could they use when reverting me while try to sort out their mess, which they did by creating an article with fake content? cygnis insignis 20:50, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cygnis insignis: accusing a fellow editor of creating fake content is inappropriate, and a breach of WP:AGF. Please supply a dif so we can see what edit you are referring to. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not a diff, I suppose I have to gather all those now, but lets start with Pandion cristatus cygnis insignis 21:50, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cygnis insignis: I'm not defending all of Pvmoutside's actions (e.g. lack of edit summaries, some moves where there could usefully have been discussions first), but can you explain what exactly Pvmoutside did at Eastern osprey that you object to so strongly? As an outsider here, I'm really struggling to understand why there's so much hostility. If you want to object to not getting a response, you have to be really clear as to the issue. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They cut and pasted the western to eastern, changed the things were going to look obviously wrong and left the impressive looking bits that referenced an australian taxon to a californian source (for example). As I say I'm going backwards, the response from the user to my pointing this out was, as I snidely inquired, the hostility of a revert that could obviously not contain an edit summary: edit warring As the first diff showed, I was in the process of sorting it out. I went and did something else when no one batted an eye. I'm not hostile, if that is what you mean, I do my best to get out of the way of their 'confused editing' because they regard my contributions as an opportunity to troll me. cygnis insignis 22:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding @Fuhghettaboutit:'s complaints. Converting from a manual taxobox to an automatic taxobox typically involves deleting a couple hundred bytes from an article. Parameters for all the taxonomic ranks which are necessary in manual taxoboxes aren't even parsed by automatic taxoboxes; retaining unparsed parameters kind of defeats the point of the automatic taxobox system. While edit summaries should be given, my usual edit summary in these cases is "convert taxobox to speciesbox". I often make some additional minor changes as part of a single edit with that summary (including deleting uninformative image captions). If an image caption in an infobox merely repeats the title of the article, it should be omitted (see WP:CAPLENGTH). While that guidance doesn't necessarily indicate that the name should be omitted if there is other information in the caption, captions need not be full sentences (WP:CAPFRAG). There was a recent discussion that was an RfC or was advertised at Village Pump; I can't find it now, but it concerned whether a caption in the infobox of a biography article should include some/none/all of: the subjects name, the date of the photo, or the location of the photo. Responses were all over the place; I don't think there is any solid consensus about whether name/location should be included in a caption. In the case of blue nuthatch, I don't think the location of the photo really added anything to the article, and I would've deleted the entire caption if I'd been editing it myself. Image captions for birds REALLY should include the sex of the individual depicted; I presume the blue nuthatch shown is male, but I'm not a birder am not confident enough of my judgement to put the sex in the caption itself if it's not given in the description on Commons.

@Cygnis insignis:, while I share your distaste for vernacular name titles, and agree that the copy/paste creation of Pandion cristatus was botched, I'm not clear what that has to do with Pvmoutside's use of edit summaries. As far as I can tell, you're referring to removal of unused references in this diff; while the copy/paste creation was inappropriate, the unused references shouldn't have been pasted over in the first place, so removing them was fine. If there are other cases where Pvmoutside has removed references (especially in service of a war on binomials), I'd like to know. If you'd like to prosecute a war on vernacular names, I'll join you, but I think that will be more successful by establishing a solid consensus among non-Tree of Life editors that WP:COMMONNAME doesn't mean "use a vernacular name if one exists", and that said consensus is best established via a precedent of Requested Moves away from vernacular name title. Over the last 3-4 years, RMs have gone vernacular->scientific far more than the other way around. And there are still some pretty low-hanging fruit of terribly misleading vernacular name titles (pig should be domestic pigs, not the genus Sus, cardinal (bird) overwhelming means Cardinalis cardinalis, not Cardinalidae). Plantdrew (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cygnis insignis:, in my taxonomy and auto taxobox travels, I try to be conservative in changes for vernacular and scientific name changes. There are many examples where vernacular names were listed and I changed them to scientific ones (see Sphaerodactylus macrolepis for example.) Also if someone has a strong feeling to revert one of my vernacular name changes, I usually leave them alone. I try to use vernacular name changes only when the sources I use only list one vernacular name. Regarding "Pandion cristatus", Wikiproject birds uses the IOC as both an English name reference and a taxonomic one. The IOC lists both the Eastern Osprey and Western Osprey as distinct species, where most other taxonomic authorities list only the one. I was trying to be thorough. What is now the Western Osprey article had a lot of good and appropriate content that could be carried over to the new Eastern Osprey one. I thought I deleted references that pertained only to the Western species, and I apologize if there were ones that weren't. Regarding Palestine viper, both the reptile database and the iucn referred to the single vernacular name, so I changed it. I did not look to the discussion page, which was an oversight, and again, I apologize. In the hundreds of changes I've done, if we are only talking about a few controversial ones, I think my odds are still pretty good. Again, I'm sorry if i'm not batting 100% for you...as Plantdrew mentioned, If you'd like to prosecute a war on vernacular names, I'd also like to join that larger discussion.... Pvmoutside (talk) 01:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Syntax highlighter recommendation[edit]

I strongly recommend the syntax highlighter gadget. You can enable it in Preferences -> Gadgets. It will make it easier to see when you have put dozens of instances of italic markup in the wrong place (oops!). I have cleaned up that one for you, along with a couple of other templates where italics were not applied correctly. Happy editing! – Jonesey95 (talk) 10:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries[edit]

In terms of this message you left on my talkpage [2]: You've been advised several times to select "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" on the Editing tab of your user preferences, so "forgetting" is not an excuse, especially when it is clear you are not forgetting, but rather only using edit summaries when it suits you.

Also, it's not particularly collaborative or transparent to delete (rather than archive) posts from your talkpage which are in response to another person who has pinged the respondent: [3]. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and edit summaries and talkpage posts and discussions are a vital part of collaboration. -- Softlavender (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I only delete messages when they are insulting and innacurate and would lead someone who is looking for help a wrong impression about who I am as a person…..Pvmoutside (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also did see now the prompt message and have selected it. I usually don't look thru automated messages, having been here a while, so sorry about that. FYI, I have done over 60 edits today, maybe 5 of them I forgot to add an edit summary, so your statements are exaggerated at best. I also don't choose to use things "to suit me", so please, again, tone down your tone, you should try to be more collaborative. I really am trying to be helpful....Pvmoutside (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

motivation[edit]

What is your motivation for moving articles on species to a common name? No doubt you regard it as an improvement, that is not what I am asking about, my query is about why is that an improvement. There are several reasons advanced that I am already aware of, the haven't persuaded me, are you able to justify your primary focus? cygnis insignis 15:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cygnis insignis, I only move articles from scientific name to common name when there is only one common name referenced from the references I use. These days, it is usually in reptiles with the reptile data base and the IUCN. If there are multiple common names, I've switched many to scientific names. Wikipedia is not a scientific reference, but one used generally by the public. Most of the species readily recognized use common names, I'm simply following that format unless the wikiproject objects (ie many of the I vertebrate ones, plants, etc.) If a wikiproject uses both scientific names and common ones, then the question become at what point does one use which.....some sort of at least minimal criteria would need to be developed rather than using personal judgement to decide which one to use in my opinion.... …..Pvmoutside (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree cygnis insignis 16:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to move this discussion to tree of life wikiproject to see if it generates anything...Pvmoutside (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

lack of qualifiers[edit]

when you do a one liner of australian reptiles - reptile in australia - and have no qualifier it can be quite a problem, australia is a big place - the reptile database has clear indication of the places where found - it would really help in your one liner/lead to actually identify the state or region(s) they are found - thanks. JarrahTree 15:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Change in redistricting[edit]

I think, but am not sure about, we don't need to break up continuous terms of members of the house when their district locations change with redistricting. I've just modified Illinois's 1st congressional district, with that in mind. What do you think? —GoldRingChip 13:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine!...Pvmoutside (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Echinops (genus) listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Echinops (genus). Since you had some involvement with the Echinops (genus) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Plantdrew (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crenadactylus ocellatus[edit]

is the most common name, the first reference I opened said "Clawless Gecko". Please reverse your move, and I will add some sections while the book is open. cygnis insignis 17:24, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

so the first reference refers to it as "western clawed gecko" which both the reptile database and the iucn refers to occidentalis. The reason why I moved to southwest clawless gecko was because the reptile database refers to it as such, and the genus page already listed it that way. If you feel strongly ocellatus should be changed to the scientific name, go ahead and change it. I won't object. To me, there is enough evidence to leave the English name in place....Pvmoutside (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How is this an improvement? You are moving pages away from the common name using a source that others pointed out just invents vernacular to fill that parameter. I am not proposing to chase around undoing your unilateral actions, you own you contributions and are accountable for them cygnis insignis 18:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
so I ended up writing up some species in the genus Cnemaspis discovered in 2018 today. They only have the reptile database as sources I can easily find. There are 2 groups of authorities that discovered species last year in the genus. One group, Sayyed, Pyron, & DiLeepkuma lists English names, the other, Cyria, Johny, Umesh, & Palot, 2018 does not. So it looks like the actual authorities make up a scientific name, at least in the reptile database, because the species are all consistent in that manner. It does not appear the reptile database makes up the names. The question then becomes are the authorities a sufficient reference for English names or do we need something else?....Pvmoutside (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(I was invited to comment here.) My view is that these issues are best settled by applying all the principles in WP:AT. Google hits aren't everything, but for me "Crenadactylus ocellatus" gets 20 times as many hits (about 3,400) as "southwestern clawless gecko" (about 170), so there's no question that the scientific name is more recognizable. Given the potential confusion between names like "western clawless gecko", "southwestern clawless gecko" and "clawless gecko", I can't see that the English name is precise either. So I support the use of the scientific name. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
thanks Peter.....where can one look up the number of Google hits for an article? …..Pvmoutside (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's just the number shown at the top of a (non-mobile view) Google search for a term. It displays as e.g. "About 6,830 results (0.70 seconds)". Plantdrew (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, For me, "Southwestern clawless gecko" gets 5720 hits, "Crenadacylus ocellatus" gets 3920 hits...Pvmoutside (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pvmoutside - I only get 174 hits for "Southwestern clawless gecko" - I suspect you have omitted to to enclose the phrase in double quotes. - Aa77zz (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pvmoutside: yes, you have to include the ".." to search for the exact phrase; just searching for the three words will give you many more hits. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Pvmoutside, and others, I'll try and get a little more some content in there, but expect that needs visit to the library. There is a gecko on my kitchen window every evening. I watched her growing up and filling out, leaping across the window to catch moths, negotiating a vertical surface as if the laws of gravity were optional. They are charming creatures :) cygnis insignis 18:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NP Cygnus....i'm looking forward to reading what you find....unfortunately we have no geckos up here in Massachusetts, so I'm stuck with reading about others exploits!....Pvmoutside (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Reptile Database invents vernacular names. There are many species that have no vernacular names listed, and a few that have multiple vernacular names (e.g. Pogona minor). Reptile Database doesn't give sources for their vernacular names, which is unfortunate. New species of birds and mammals pretty routinely have vernacular names invented by their describers and included in the original description. That practice exists for other vertebrates, but is less prevalent.

Pvmoutside, you are basically the only active ToL editor who doesn't work exclusively on birds that is enthusiastic about using vernacular names for article titles (this thread has no longer very active editor who was quite enthusiastic about vernacular name titles questioning that practice).

Vernacular titles are a cargo cult. They're used because that's how Wikipedia does it without really thinking about why Wikipedia does it, or what would best serve our readers. Sometimes vernacular titles hinder readers; sometimes they have no advantage in recognizability, and sometimes readers will be comfortable with the scientific name anyway.

There are vernacular name titles that make it more difficult for readers to find the information they seek; cardinal (bird), turkey (bird) and pig cover genera and families, when there is clearly one particular species that readers are looking for. These titles haven't really been questioned by Wikipedians, because hey, that's three less articles that are using scientific names for titles (meanwhile, readers leave comments on the talk pages wondering why there isn't information about the species they are interested in). People in North America searching for "beaver" (which is fine at that title) probably want North American beaver, a term that is extremely unlikely to be searched for, less likely than "American beaver" or "Canadian beaver". Readers may find their way to the species article from the genus article, but I don't see any major harm from using the Castor canadensis as a title instead of the least common of three vernacular names.

In a lot of cases, I don't see much concern on Wikipedia, or by scientists who coin vernacular names as to whether the names are actually helpful to a layperson. Barahona amphisbaena? Most people have no clue what an amphisbaena is, and if they do have a clue, they're probably not going to be put off by scientific names. We have a fork of dorcopsis (as a vernacular name) and Dorcopsis (genus). Again, very few people have ever heard of a dorcopsis, and these were also called "forest wallabys" before MSW people got their hands on them. MSW common names are frequently TERRIBLE; they overrode many pre-existing vernacular names because they weren't phylogenetically correct; maybe dorcopsises aren't "true wallabys", but "wallaby" is a word that is more recognizable and it isn't totally off base phylogenetically. And English is full of vernacular names that are totally off base phylogenetically and it really don't confuse anybody; prairie dog, starfish, jellyfish. Using a genus name as a part of a "common" name and translating the epithet doesn't help anybody (especially when the epithet is an eponym; e.g "Slater's amphisbaena").

We do write Wikipedia for a general audience. However, Wikipedia is full of niche topics that are mostly of interest to specialists. Laypeople already recognize some scientific names, even if they may not recognize them as such: rhinoceros, boa constrictor, fuchsia, hippopotamus (and "E. coli" and "C diff", "MRSA" as abbreviations). Everybody knows dinosaurs by their scientific names. Getting into more specialized audiences (but not taxonomists), gardeners are likely to recognize more plants by scientific names than the general public (gladiolus, zinnia). People who keep fish and reptiles as pets may use vernacular names in everyday speech, but are more likely to be aware that vernacular names can be imprecise and the scientific name is a more useful search term. However, the majority of species are of interest only to taxonomists, or people who are so specialized that they are more likely to know an organism by it's scientific name than any vernacular name. Newly discovered species with well-crafted press releases may attract a brief surge of attention to a vernacular name, but if a species was unknown before the 21st century, it's not likely to have any long term interest for the layperson (and in some cases, the scientific name of a new species can drive public interest; e.g. Neopalpa donaldtrumpi). Taxonomy is really the only area of Wikipedia where there is a mentality that the precise name used by people who are deeply interested in the particular field is to be avoided (largely because COMMONNAME is a term of art in both taxonomy and Wikipedia, with somewhat different meanings). We have patella (not kneecap), fluoxetine (not Prozac), and (486958) 2014 MU69 (which survived a move request to "Ultima Thule"). People are able to navigate to those articles just fine via redirects, and search engine algorithms.

Birds are a very special case, where the vernacular names are tied to a particular species concept, and are thus more precise than scientific names. With many of the articles that have vernacular name titles, the names are coined by scientists (without the order provided by the IOC) and not really used at all by laypeople. You've been using vernacular names as titles, when you can only find a single name. I think as species become better and better known, they tend to accumulate more vernacular names. However, at some point, there's a threshold where a species is so well known that pretty much everybody knows it by a single common name. That threshold is what we should be aiming for in titling articles, not species that are so poorly known that only one scientists has bothered to coin a vernacular name for them.

Some things I think are good practice in considering vernacular names title. WP:GOOGLETESTs have flaws, but if a vernacular name performs poorly against a scientific name, it's not a good choice. If taxonomic specialists were unaware of the existence of a species before the 21st century, laypeople certainly don't care about it; there's no reason to prefer a vernacular name coined in the original description. If databases that record multiple vernacular names only show a single one, that is a red flag for a poorly known species. If a vernacular name doesn't contain a word that is readily recognizable to a layperson as referring to a kind of organism, it's not really a helpful title for readers.

Plants do use vernacular name titles sometimes. While 99% of plant articles use scientific names, almost half of the taxa in the 1000 most viewed articles use vernacular title (I've compiled an analysis at User:Plantdrew/Holarrhena pubescens). And the highly viewed articles that don't use vernacular titles provide evidence that readers are able to find them anyway, via redirects and search engine algorithms. There are a small number of very highly viewed articles (not just plants) where vernacular name titles make a great deal of sense. There are many other cases where vernacular titles don't really help readers at all. Plantdrew (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent mini-essay which should be preserved for future use! Peter coxhead (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree a very comprehensive informative piece. I'll start using the google search for choosing which name to use, whether it be vernacular or scientific. My preference is still to use vernacular if they are close, since most readers are not scientists. As you've also said, many articles i'm creating don't get a lot of hits anyway, so in the grand scheme of things it really doesn't matter much. I'll slightly disagree with you I that there are occasions where a vernacular name is created in recent years where it is more popular than the scientific....namely in birds and other higher order organisms (i.e. Tapanuli orangutan and other primates in the example you cite above. Keep on working on me Plantdrew......Pvmoutside (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When I was thinking about new species, I was thinking mostly about range-restricted endemics that haven't been discovered previously simply because an expert has never been to the area where they occur before. That's the situation for most new plant species (and many insects, amphibians and reptiles). For birds and large mammals, new species are maybe more often known populations (possibly range restricted) that haven't had their DNA looked at previously and are newly split from a previously known species. Large animals (say over 1 kg? 100g?) will attract more interest from the general public. And birds are a special case; because of both IOC regulation of names, and there being a community of enthusiasts who view observing every known species in the wild as a goal to strive for (and said community has a strong preference for vernacular names). I'm working on polishing up what I wrote above and turning it into an essay. Plantdrew (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

phew[edit]

that was all over naming?

please when creating articles about biota in australia could you move on from found in Australia to something more specific? Australia is too generic, specially for the biota project - regions or states or locations really help assessment in the Australian biota project - thanks... JarrahTree 00:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yep....already being done in my last group. It was pointed out you Aussies wanted something more specific, so I did it by state (i.e. Western Australia, New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, etc)….Pvmoutside (talk) 10:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
we aussies in AGF I am not sure its the issue - it could be for anywhere on the planet - country is usually not tight enough to identfiy occurrence - when an item of biota is labelled in australia on the main space, and then in the talk page nothing is tagged at all - it can be easily lost...JarrahTree 04:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
a very good example -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser%27s_delma - as entered australia - yet the actual map shows western australia - please try... JarrahTree 00:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
that was created a couple of months ago before your request. After your request was made, states have been added to new articles.... Pvmoutside (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Access date[edit]

Access date is an informative parameter, that's why it is included in the citation templates—it allows a reader to assess whether information is up to date or not. Now you have been adding citations to the Reptile Database with access date 20 October 2015. This is unlikely to be correct, and is 3.5 years off. Herptile systematics is evolving quite fast, so you easily end up making incorrect claims about the content of the source at a specific date (as far as you are not accessing an archived copy of the database). I recommend using the actual access date. Cheers, Micromesistius (talk) 03:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:USCongressOrdinal[edit]

If you use "Present" as the second parameter in {{USCongressOrdinal}}, then after each election, we only have to change those districts whose members changed (and, of course, the setting for "Present" once in {{USCongressOrdinal}}). E.g.: {{USCongressOrdinal|116|Present}} —GoldRingChip 12:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's excellent...thank-you!.....Pvmoutside (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I've just edited the template so "{{USCongressOrdinal|Present}}" will return "118th". —GoldRingChip 17:46, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
However, I now realize that just having one paramter as "Present" as in "{{USCongressOrdinal|Present}}" will cause problems when the 117th Congress starts because then it will just return the 117th and not the 116th and 117th as a range. Did you use it that way? If not, I'll revert the template's code so nobody will do it in the future. —GoldRingChip 16:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
no, I've been adding 116/Present for first termers.....Pvmoutside (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, good. I'll make the change. —GoldRingChip 19:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you![edit]

Your doing a good job, keep it up!

Catfurball (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Tree of Life Newsletter[edit]

April 2019—Issue 001


Tree of Life


Welcome to the inaugural issue of the Tree of Life newsletter!
Newly recognized content

Sturgeon nominated by Atsme, reviewed by Chiswick Chap
Eastern brown snake nominated by Casliber, reviewed by Opabinia regalis
Cactus wren nominated by CaptainEek, reviewed by Sainsf
Bidni nominated by PolluxWorld, reviewed by DepressedPer
Crinoid nominated by Cwmhiraeth, reviewed by Chiswick Chap

Newly nominated FAs

Cretoxyrhina nominated by Macrophyseter
Eastern brown snake nominated by Casliber



WikiCup heating up

Tree of Life editors are making a respectable showing in this year's WikiCup, with three regular editors advancing to the third round. Overall winner from 2016, Casliber, topped the scoreboard in points for round 2, getting a nice bonus for bringing Black mamba to FA. Enwebb continues to favor things remotely related to bats, bringing Stellaluna to GA. Plants editor Guettarda also advanced to round 3 with several plant-related DYKs.

Wikipedia page views track animal migrations, flowers blooming

A March 2019 paper in PLOS Biology found that Wikipedia page views vary seasonally for species. With a dataset of 31,751 articles about species, the authors found that roughly a quarter of all articles had significant seasonal variations in page views on at least one language version of Wikipedia. They examined 245 language versions. Page views also peaked with cultural events, such as views of the Great white shark article during Shark Week or Turkey during Thanksgiving.

Seasonal variation in page views among nine bird species
Did you know ... that Tree of Life editors bring content to the front page nearly every day?

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Woodhouse's scrub jay" Vs Woodhouse's Scrub-Jay"[edit]

Why did you revert my edits? "Woodhouse's Scrub-Jay" is the spelling used by both the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, and the National Audubon Society. In fact, Wikipedia seems to be the only resource not using the hyphenated spelling.

Saberus (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

we follow the IOC for English names who do not use dashes. Also, Wikipedia does not capitalize except for place names or people's names...sorry for not letting you know beforehand....Pvmoutside (talk)
I see. Sorry for having carelessly trudged through your particular pumpkin patch. My elderly mother is a bird watcher and was annoyed that the article title was "wrong" and asked if I could fix it for her. After your reply, I found IOC's paper explaining their reasoning for doing away with hyphens in names having the form [sub-type]-[type], and walked her through their reasoning. I think she still wishes it matched NAS name, but she said, "At least there is an explanation."....Saberus (talk) 02:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taxa named by... category[edit]

I see you have been the taxa named by ... categories from the scientific name pages to the common name pages. This issue has been discussed several times and consensus is that common names are not taxa, and so the "taxa named by ..." category belongs on the scientific name page, even if that is a redirect. 17:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree; logically the "named by" categories go with the "described in year" categories, and both apply only to the scientific name, as has been agreed in the past. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, I see your point about taxa named by is scientific, not vernacular. My problem is maintenance, not theoretical. So if an article page, let's take Blue Whale for instance, is placed on the scientific name page redirect, and doesn't appear on the common name article page, then an editor will notice it missing and add it, creating 2 places for the same species where the tax author name category is placed. Either someone maintains that and deletes it like was done with my edits, or the 2 links stay. I'm fearing there will be a lot of future maintenance work if you all want to keep it to scientific names on the redirects. Also, it appears many were added to common name article pages, so there is a ton of maintenance to be done on current pages if you want to continue linking to redirects...should we involve any others in this discussion?.....Pvmoutside (talk) 17:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've also added a discussion to the WikiProject Tree of Life talk page...Pvmoutside (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, the "described in year" pages all usually go now to the article page, whether it is common name or scientific....i haven't found any in the scientific name redirects.....

A lizard for you![edit]

Slithery Lizard Barnstar
Thanks for all of your prolific page creations on reptiles and other living species. Well done! Your years of service to the Wikipedia community are highly commended. I myself am a big fan of diversity on Earth, and have created many articles on plant/animal species, languages, etc. — Stevey7788 (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
For your tremendous efforts implement automatic taxoboxes for bird articles Plantdrew (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Rattus[edit]

Greetings, I note that you converted a redirect to a very nice fully fledged article, here. If you wrote the article, from scratch, in situ that is absolutely fine but if the content has been copied, recovered or moved from another page then would you help me, please, with its origins so I can fix attribution? Thanks! Just Chilling (talk) 01:14, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Levi Lincoln Sr.gif[edit]

Notice

The file File:Levi Lincoln Sr.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019 Tree of Life Newsletter[edit]

May 2019—Issue 002


Tree of Life


Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!
Newly recognized content

Cretoxyrhina by Macrophyseter
Bramble Cay melomys by The lorax/Vanamonde93, reviewed by Jens Lallensack
Chimpanzee by LittleJerry/Chiswick Chap, reviewed by Tim riley
Spinophorosaurus by FunkMonk/Jens Lallensack, reviewed by Enwebb
Trachodon mummy by Jens Lallensack, reviewed by Gog the Mild
Megabat by Enwebb, reviewed by Jens Lallensack

Newly nominated FAs

Spinophorosaurus by FunkMonk/Jens Lallensack
Trachodon mummy by Jens Lallensack




Fundamental changes being discussed at WikiProject Biology

On 23 May, user Prometheus720 created a talk page post, "Revamp of Wikiproject Biology--Who is In?". In the days since, WP:BIOL has been bustling with activity, with over a dozen editors weighing in on this discussion, as well as several others that have subsequently spawned. An undercurrent of thought is that WP:BIOL has too many subprojects, preventing editors from easily interacting and stopping a "critical mass" of collaboration and engagement. Many mergers and consolidations of subprojects have been tentatively listed, with a consolidation of WikiProjects Genetics + Molecular and Cell Biology + Computational Biology + Biophysics currently in discussion. Other ideas being aired include updating old participants lists, redesigning project pages to make them more user-friendly, and clearly identifying long- and short-term goals.

Editor Spotlight: These editors want you to write about dinosaurs

Editors FunkMonk and Jens Lallensack had a very fruitful month, collaborating to bring two dinosaur articles to GA and then nominating them both for FA. They graciously decided to answer some questions for the first ToL Editor Spotlight, giving insight to their successful collaborations, explaining why you should collaborate with them, and also sharing some tidbits about their lives off-Wikipedia.

1) Enwebb: How long have you two been collaborating on articles?

  • Jens Lallensack: I started in the German Wikipedia in 2005 but switched to the English Wikipedia because of its very active dinosaur project. My first major collaboration with FunkMonk was on Heterodontosaurus in 2015.
  • FunkMonk: Yeah, we had interacted already on talk pages and through reviewing each other's articles, and at some point I was thinking of expanding Heterodontosaurus, and realised Jens had already written the German Wikipedia version, so it seemed natural to work together on the English one. Our latest collaboration was Spinophorosaurus, where by another coincidence, I had wanted to work on that article for the WP:Four Award, and it turned out that Jens had a German book about the expedition that found the dinosaur, which I wouldn't have been able to utilise with my meagre German skills. Between those, we also worked on Brachiosaurus, a wider Dinosaur Project collaboration between several editors.

2) Enwebb: Why dinosaurs?

  • JL: Because of the huge public interest in them. But dinosaurs are also highly interesting from a scientific point of view: key evolutionary innovations emerged within this group, such as warm-bloodedness, gigantism, and flight. Dinosaur research is, together with the study of fossil human remains, the most active field in paleontology. New scientific techniques and approaches tend to get developed within this field. Dinosaur research became increasingly interdisciplinary, and now does not only rely on various fields of biology and geology, but also on chemistry and physics, among others. Dinosaurs are therefore ideal to convey scientific methodology to the general public.
  • FM: As outlined above, dinosaurs have been described as a "gateway to science"; if you learn about dinosaurs, you will most likely also learn about a lot of scientific fields you would not necessarily be exposed to otherwise. On a more personal level, having grown up with and being influenced by various dinosaur media, it feels pretty cool to help spread knowledge about these animals, closest we can get to keeping them alive.

3) Enwebb: Why should other editors join you in writing articles related to paleontology? Are you looking to attract new editors, or draw in experienced editors from other areas of Wikipedia?

  • JL: Because we are a small but active and helpful community. Our Dinosaur collaboration, one of the very few active open collaborations in Wikipedia, makes high-level writing on important articles easier and more fun. Our collaboration is especially open to editors without prior experience in high-level writing. But we do not only write articles: several WikiProject Dinosaur participants are artists who do a great job illustrating the articles, and maintain an extensive and very active image review system. In fact, a number of later authors started with contributing images.
  • FM: Anyone who is interested in palaeontology is welcome to try writing articles, and we would be more than willing to help. I find that the more people that work on articles simultaneously with me, the more motivation I get to write myself. I am also one of those editors who started out contributing dinosaur illustrations and making minor edits, and only began writing after some years. But when I got to it, it wasn't as intimidating as I had feared, and I've learned a lot in the process. For example anatomy; if you know dinosaur anatomy, you have a very good framework for understanding the anatomy of other tetrapod animals, including humans.

4) Enwebb: Between the two of you, you have over 300 GA reviews. FunkMonk, you have over 250 of those. What keeps you coming back to review more articles?

  • FM: One of the main reasons I review GANs is to learn more about subjects that seem interesting (or which I would perhaps not come across otherwise). There are of course also more practical reasons, such as helping an article on its way towards FAC, to reduce the GAN backlog, and to "pay back" when I have a nomination up myself. It feels like a win-win situation where I can be entertained by interesting info, while also helping other editors get their nominations in shape, and we'll end up with an article that hopefully serves to educate a lot of people (the greater good).
  • JL: Because I enjoy reading Wikipedia articles and like to learn new things. In addition, reviews give me the opportunity to have direct contact with the authors, and help them to make their articles even better. This is quite rewarding for me personally. But I also review because I consider our GA and FA system to be of fundamental importance for Wikipedia. When I started editing Wikipedia (the German version), the article promotion reviews motivated me and improved my writing skills a lot. Submitting an article for review requires one to get serious and take additional steps to bring the article to the best quality possible. GAs and FAs are also a good starting point for readers, and may motivate them to become authors themselves.

5) Enwebb: What are your editing preferences? Any scripts or gadgets you find invaluable?

  • FM: One script that everyone should know about is the duplink highlight tool. It will show duplinks within the intro and body of a given article separately, and it seems a lot of people still don't know about it, though they are happy when introduced to it. I really liked the citationbot too (since citation consistency is a boring chore to me), but it seems to be blocked at the moment due to some technical issues.
  • JL: I often review using the Wikipedia Beta app on my smartphone, as it allows me to read without needing to sit in front of the PC. For writing, I find the reference management software Zotero invaluable, as it generates citation templates automatically, saving a lot of time.
    • Editor's note: I downloaded Zotero and tried it for the first time and think it is a very useful tool. More here.

6) Enwebb: What would surprise the ToL community to learn about your life off-wiki?

  • FM: Perhaps that I have no background in natural history/science, but work with animation and games. But fascination with and knowledge of nature and animals is actually very helpful when designing and animating characters and creatures, so it isn't that far off, and I can actually use some of the things I learn while writing here for my work (when I wrote the Dromaeosauroides article, it was partially to learn more about the animal for a design-school project).
  • JL: That I am actually doing research on dinosaurs. Though I avoid writing about topics I publish research on, my Wikipedia work helps me to keep a good general overview over the field, and quite regularly I can use what I learned while writing for Wikipedia for my research.

Get in touch with these editors regarding collaboration at WikiProject Dinosaurs!

Marine life continues to dominate ToL DYKs

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

Sent by DannyS712 (talk) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 03:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

William Barnes (entomologist)[edit]

I'm so glad to see this article created. I live not too far from Decatur and I see his name as an authority in Lepidoptera articles all the time. Some of the genus names created under his name match the names of small towns around Decatur and I'm always thrilled to think that I'm in the small group of people who can recognize that connection. I think you did well describing his having his name included as the authority as a courtesy, though I know from other reading that he was actively involved in the collecting and evaluating. I may go back and see if I can find references which support that. He was primarily a surgeon though.

Would you like help going through and linking his name in what must be thousands of articles? I could do it fairly quickly with AWB.

Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike | ⌨  17:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...I saw the page missing when I created the McDunnough taxa named by page. The online references about Barnes were easy to find, so I wrote away... The actual McDunnough page had the statement about having his name included as a courtesy, so I carried it over to Barnes' page since it applied to him. I don't mind at all if you want to change it....it would be great if you can link the others. I did about 30 when I created his taxa named by category page.. I've also nominated it as a DYK page, particularly regarding his collection.....Pvmoutside (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be away from the computer for a bit, but I'll get some today and more in the next few days. There are 5,062 hits for "described by william barnes" right now and 34 pages link to William Barnes (entomologist). There will be a lot more soon. SchreiberBike | ⌨  19:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
great....Pvmoutside (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Australian tern[edit]

The text in Australian tern closely matches the text in this site. Why is this not a copyright issue?S Philbrick(Talk) 15:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sphilbrick: The text mirrors wikipedia content. cygnis insignis 17:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC) P.S. That is, both texts mirror wikipedia content, the website you link did it with attribution. cygnis insignis 17:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cygnis insignis, Thanks for your response.
I tend to look at the bottom of page site for copyright information and that page does have a full© at the bottom of the page. I now see that there is attribution in the middle of page.
Can I ask Pvmoutside to take a look at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia which contains suggested wording for best practices. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I Just recognised at a glance it was copied wiki content, having read thousands of our articles, so was looking for the notice I expected to be there. An easy mistake to make, and it is best to check. The user has been informed on several occasions about 'best practice', including copying within wikipedia, I recommend mentioning it once and leave it at that. cygnis insignis 18:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Alopecoenas[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Alopecoenas requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sombrero ameiva[edit]

The link you keep removing is Lesser Antilles,[4] not Netherlands Antilles. postdlf (talk) 19:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019 Tree of Life Newsletter[edit]

June 2019—Issue 003


Tree of Life


Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!
Newly recognized content

Masked booby by Casliber and Aa77zz, reviewed by Jens Lallensack
Rook (bird) by Cwmhiraeth, reviewed by J Milburn
Vernonopterus by Ichthyovenator, reviewed by Super Dromaeosaurus
Campylocephalus by Ichthyovenator, reviewed by Super Dromaeosaurus
Unionopterus by Super Dromaeosaurus, reviewed by Ashorocetus
Big Cat, Little Cat by Barkeep49, reviewed by J Milburn
Félicette by Kees08, reviewed by Nova Crystallis

Newly nominated content

Masked booby by Casliber
Adelophthalmidae
Plains zebra by LittleJerry
Letter-winged kite by Casliber



Relative WikiWork
Project name Relative WikiWork
Cats
4.79
Fisheries and fishing
4.9
Dogs
4.91
Viruses
4.91
ToL
4.94
Cetaceans
4.97
Primates
4.98
Sharks
5.04
All wikiprojects average
5.05
Dinosaurs
5.12
Equine
5.15
Bats
5.25
Mammals
5.32
Aquarium fishes
5.35
Hypericaceae
5.38
Turtles
5.4
Birds
5.46
Australian biota
5.5
Marine life
5.54
Animals
5.56
Paleontology
5.57
Rodents
5.58
Amphibians and Reptiles
5.64
Fungi
5.65
Bivalves
5.66
Plants
5.67
Algae
5.68
Arthropods
5.69
Hymenoptera
5.72
Microbiology
5.72
Cephalopods
5.74
Fishes
5.76
Ants
5.79
Gastropods
5.8
Spiders
5.86
Insects
5.9
Beetles
5.98
Lepidoptera
5.98
Spineless editors overwhelmed by stubs

Within the Tree of Life and its many subprojects, there is an abundance of stubs. Welcome to Wikipedia, what's new, right? However, based on all wikiprojects listed (just over two thousand), the Tree of Life project is worse off in average article quality than most. Based on the concept of relative WikiWork (the average number of "steps" needed to have a project consisting of all featured articles (FAs), where stub status → FA consists of six steps), only seven projects within the ToL have an average rating of "start class" or better. Many projects, particularly those involving invertebrates, hover at an average article quality slightly better than a stub. With relative WikiWorks of 5.98 each, WikiProject Lepidoptera and WikiProject Beetles have the highest relative WikiWork of any project. Given that invertebrates are incredibly speciose, it may not surprise you that many articles about them are lower quality. WikiProject Beetles, for example, has over 20 times more articles than WikiProject Cats. Wikipedia will always be incomplete, so we should take our relatively low WikiWork as motivation to write more articles that are also better in quality.

Editor Spotlight: Showing love to misfit taxa

We're joined for this month's Editor Spotlight by NessieVL, a long-time contributor who lists themselves as a member of WikiProject Fungus, WikiProject Algae, and WikiProject Cephalopods.

1) Enwebb: How did you come to edit articles about organisms and taxonomic groups?

  • Nessie: The main force, then and now, driving me to create or edit articles is thinking "Why isn't there an article on that on Wikipedia?" Either I'll read about some rarely-sighted creature in the deep sea or find something new on iNaturalist and want to learn more. First stop (surprise!) is Wikipedia, and many times there is just a stub or no page at all. Sometimes I just add the source that got me to the article, not sometimes I go deep and try to get everything from the library or online journals and put it all in an article. The nice thing about taxa is the strong precedent that all accepted extant taxa are notable, so one does not need to really worry about doing a ton of research and having the page get removed. I was super worried about this as a new editor: I still really dislike conflict so if I can avoid it I do. Anyway, the most important part is stitching an article in to the rest of Wikipedia: Linking all the jargon, taxonomers, pollinators, etc., adding categories, and putting in the correct WikiProjects. Recently I have been doing more of the stitching-in stuff with extant articles. The last deep-dive article I made was Karuka at the end of last year, which is a bit of a break for me. I guess it's easier to do all the other stuff on my tablet while watching TV.

2) Enwebb: Many editors in the ToL are highly specialized on a group of taxa. A look at your recently created articles includes much diversity, though, with viruses, bacteria, algae, and cnidarians all represented—are there any commonalities for the articles you work on? Would you say you're particularly interested in certain groups?

  • Nessie: I was a nerd from a time when that would get you beat up, so I like odd things and underdogs. I also avoid butting heads, so not only do I find siphonophores and seaweeds fascinating I don't have to worry about stepping on anyone's toes. I go down rabbitholes where I start writing an article like Mastocarpus papillatus because I found some growing on some rocks, then in my research I see it is parasitized by Pythium porphyrae, which has no article, and how can that be for an oomycete that oddly lives in the ocean and also attacks my tasty nori. So then I wrote that article and that got me blowing off the dust on other Oomycota articles, encouraged by the pull of propagating automatic taxoboxes. Once you've done the taxonomy template for the genus, well then you might as well do all the species now that the template is taken care of for them too. and so on until I get sucked in somewhere else. I think it's good to advocate for some of these 'oddball' taxa as it makes it easier for editors to expand their range from say plants to the pathogenic microorganisms of their favorite plant.
My favorite clades though, It's hard to pick for a dilettante like me. I like working on virus taxonomy, but I can't think of a specific virus species that I am awed by. Maybe Tulip breaking virus for teaching us economics or Variola virus for having so many smallpox deities, one of which was popularly sung about by Desi Arnaz and then inspired the name of a cartoon character who was then misremembered and then turned into a nickname for Howard Stern's producer Gary Dell'Abate. Sorry, really had to share that chain, but for a species that's not a staple food it probably has the most deities. But anyway, for having the most species that wow me, I love a good fungus or algae, but that often is led by my stomach. Also why I seem to research so many plant articles. You can't eat siphonophores, at least I don't, but they are fascinating with their federalist colonies of zooids. Bats are all amazing, but the task force seems to have done so much I feel the oomycetes and slime moulds need more love. Same thing with dinosaurs (I'm team Therizinosaurus though). But honestly, every species has that one moment in the research where you just go, wow, that's so interesting. For instance, I loved discovering that the picture-winged fly (Delphinia picta) has a mating dance that involves blowing bubbles. Now I keep expecting them to show me when they land on my arm, but no such luck yet.

3) Enwebb: I noticed that many of your recent edits utilize the script Rater, which aids in quickly reassessing the quality and importance of an article. Why is it important to update talk page assessments of articles? I also noticed that the quality rating you assign often aligns with ORES, a script that uses machine-learning to predict article quality. Coincidence?

  • Nessie: I initially started focusing on WikiProject talk page templates because they seem to be the key to data collecting and maintenance for articles, much more so than categories. This is where you note of an article needs an image, or audio, or a range map. It's how the cleanup listing bot sorts articles, and how Plantdrew does his automated taxobox usage stats. The latter inspired me to look for articles on organisms that are not assigned to any ToL WikiProjects which initially was in the thousands. I got it down to zero with just copypasta so you can imagine I was excited when I saw the rater tool. Back then I rated everything stub/low because it was faster: I couldn't check every article for the items on the B-class checklists. Plus each project has their own nuances to rating scales and I thought the editors in the individual projects would take it from there. I also thought all species were important, so how can I choose a favorite? Now it is much easier with the rater tool and the apparent consensus with Abductive's method of rating by the pageviews (0-9 views/day is low, 10-99 is med, 100-999 is high...). For the quality I generally go by the ORES rating, you caught me. It sometimes is thrown off by a long list of species or something, but it's generally good for stub to C: above that needs formal investigation and procedures I am still learning about. It seems that in the ToL projects we don't focus so much on getting articles to GA/FA so it's been harder to pick up. It was a little culture shock when I went on the Discord server and it seemed everyone was obsessed with getting articles up in quality. I think ToL is focusing on all the missing taxa and (re)organizing it all, which when you already have articles on every anime series or whatever you can focus on bulking the articles up more. In any event, on my growing to-do list is trying to get an article up to FA or GA and learn the process that way so I can better do the quality ratings and not just kick the can down the road.

4) Enwebb: What, if anything, can ToL and its subprojects do to better support collaboration and coordination among editors? How can we improve?

  • Nessie: I mentioned earlier that the projects are the main way maintenance is done. And it is good that we have a bunch of subprojects that let those tasks get broken up into manageable pieces. Frankly I'm amazed anything gets done with WikiProject Plants with how huge its scope is. Yet this not only parcels out the work but the discussion as well. A few editors like Peter coxhead and Plantdrew keep an eye on many of the subprojects and spread the word, but it's still easy for newer editors to get a little lost. There should be balance between the lumping and splitting. The newsletter helps by crossing over all the WikiProjects, and if the discord channel picked up that would help too. Possibly the big Enwiki talk page changes will help as well.

5) Enwebb: What would surprise the ToL community to learn about your life off-Wikipedia?

  • Nessie: I'm not sure anything would be surprising. I focus on nature offline too, foraging for mushrooms or wild plants and trying to avoid ticks and mosquitos. I have started going magnet fishing lately, more to help clean up the environment than in the hopes of finding anything valuable. But it would be fun to find a weapon and help solve a cold case or something.
June DYKs

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

New message from Narutolovehinata5[edit]

Hello, Pvmoutside. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/William Barnes (entomologist).
Message added 23:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Narutolovehinata5[edit]

Hello, Pvmoutside. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/William Barnes (entomologist).
Message added 08:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Template:Did you know nominations/William Barnes (entomologist)[edit]

Hello Pvmoutside. Your input at your DYK nomination has been requested, as the article still has issues that need to be resolved before it can pass. If you are unable to respond there within the next few days, the nomination may be marked for closure as unsuccessful. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Taxa named by Andre F. Mendonca[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Taxa named by Andre F. Mendonca requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 15:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

William Barnes (entomologist)[edit]

Hey Pvmoutside. Are you still planning to continue the DYK nomination for this article? Some requests for clarification have been raised on the discussion page and your input has been requested. Please inform us if you still intend push through with the nomination, than you. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

no....the cited info is all I have...thanks for following up....Pvmoutside (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see. So are you withdrawing the nomination? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
yes....do I need to do that?....Pvmoutside (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you have decided to no longer pursue a nomination, you can leave a message indicating that fact. In any case I've marked the DYK nomination as withdrawn. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Levi Lincoln Jr.gif[edit]

Notice

The file File:Levi Lincoln Jr.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tree of Life Newsletter[edit]

Shortcut
July 2019—Issue 004


Tree of Life


Welcome to the Tree of Life newsletter!
Newly recognized content

List of felids by PresN
Masked booby by Casliber
Letter-winged kite by Casliber, reviewed by Jens Lallensack
Plains zebra by LittleJerry, reviewed by starsandwhales
Ornithogalum umbellatum by Michael Goodyear, reviewed by Jens Lallensack



Newly nominated content

Letter-winged kite by Casliber
Megabat by Enwebb
Onychopterella by Super Dromaeosaurus
Dvulikiaspis by Super Dromaeosaurus
Kosmoceratops by FunkMonk
Clussexx Three D Grinchy Glee by Hunter Kahn
Giant golden-crowned flying fox by Enwebb
Myxomatosis by Rabbit Vet

Discuss this issue

You are receiving this because you added your name to the subscribers list of the WikiProject Tree of Life. If you no longer wish to receive the newsletter, please remove your name.

Sent by ZLEA via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thirteen years of editing[edit]

Hey, Pvmoutside. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Disambiguation link notification for August 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of birds of Algeria, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Plain martin and Rock pipit (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) 08:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pvmoutside/Archive_3&oldid=1142207605"