User talk:Stemonitis

n.b. I will reply to messages wherever they are posted. If you write something here, my reply will also be here. If I have written something on someone else's talk page, I will be watching it for a while.

Archived talk

25/01/05–06/10/05 07/10/05–17/02/06 18/02/06–22/05/06 23/05/06–02/07/06 01/07/06–30/09/06 02/10/06–01/11/06 02/11/06–01/12/06 01/12/06–24/01/07 26/01/07–26/02/07 04/03/07–26/03/07 27/03/07–11/04/07 11/04/07–23/04/07 24/04/07–04/05/07 05/05/07–15/05/07 17/05/07–16/06/07 15/06/07–03/07/07 04/07/07–01/08/07 05/08/07–15/08/07 16/08/07–22/08/07 24/08/07–31/08/07 01/09/07–21/06/08 23/01/09–15/02/09 17/02/09–17/12/09 26/12/09–16/02/10 21/02/10–29/04/10 01/05/10–13/06/10 16/06/10–31/07/10 01/08/10–19/09/10 22/09/10–14/11/10 15/11/10–26/01/11 28/01/11–27/04/11 29/04/11–25/06/11 27/06/11–04/08/11 08/08/11–17/09/11 27/09/11–06/11/11 08/11/11–12/12/11 12/12/11–03/02/12 05/02/12–14/04/12 16/04/12–10/06/12 14/06/12–21/09/12 27/09/12–06/12/12 12/12/12–24/06/13 07/06/13–06/11/13 11/11/13–08/04/15

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stemonitis, glad to see you came back after your break. Would you mind paying a visit to our friend Planonasus (and his IP alter-ego) again [1], who is back to removing the parentheses on scientific authorities again? [2]. It's really getting old. Neil916 (Talk) 01:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. I've left a (final) warning on the IP's talk page. The IP has been blocked before (by me), has never engaged with the community, and seems to be deaf to our entreaties, so I'll happily enforce a considerably longer block if the behaviour continues. User:Planonasus is slightly more complex. I haven't seen anything in their most recent edits that could be considered disruptive. Certainly, the overall intention – of both accounts, actually – is constructive, but I understand your anxiety about the potential for disruptive edits. If you become aware of anything untoward, do let me know, and I'll take action. I'm sure a lot of the damage from previous edits has yet to be made good, so it would be best if we can avoid accruing any more. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The diff I provided for Planonasus was of his removing parentheses, which was what triggered my original message. I agree that it's complex, and I would have thought that the last set of blocks would have effectively sent the message that it wasn't acceptable to continue to deliberately introduce errors into the encyclopedia, but all they've done is wait until the block expired and then continued. I'm thinking that perhaps a more effective resolution would be an indefinite block with a provision that all they need to do to be unblocked is to acknowledge the undesirable behavior and agree to stop or at least engage in some discussion it if they think they're right. That's what lacking here. I'm losing enthusiasm for wholesale reverting of their edits, especially when it's reverting good edits at the same time as the bad edits, like my edit here. And that's only on pages that pop up on my watchlist... I'm not terribly active editing fish articles any more. Thanks for your attention. Neil916 (Talk) 15:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes. It's hard to spot the changes when additional species are inserted. I don't know why the 'diff' engine performs quite so poorly in those circumstances. I have warned Planonasus, although he/she hasn't done anything in a few days. Let's hope the warning and advice is taken seriously. Otherwise, it will indeed require a lengthy block. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, our message has fallen on deaf ears again... [3]. Neil916 (Talk) 18:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, perhaps inevitably, 109.29.22.222 has been blocked. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Without being aware that the Tristan rock lobster article existed, I created the article Jasus paulensis. I found that WoRMS gave Jasus tristani as a synonym of Jasus paulensis and proceeded to write my article on that basis. Shall I merge the two articles and make the Jasus tristani one a redirect to Jasus paulensis? Alternatively, I could proceed on the basis that they are separate species and just mention in my article that some authorities consider them identical. What would you suggest? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it now, I can't see any reason to keep the two articles separate. If you can see anything useful in Tristan rock lobster, then by all means take it in to Jasus paulensis. Perhaps mention that some sources (e.g. IUCN) retain them as separate species. The experimental justification for synonymising the two is given at doi:10.1080/17451000.2012.676185 ([4]), in case you haven't seen it. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will do what you suggest. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Stemonitis,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Best regards,  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   09:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• On the Extreme poverty page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I see you made an edit to my link to Simply Supplements on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glucosamine The reason for my edit was a dead link was present. I made a legitimate change to the page that did not violate any rules due to the fact that the site I sourced included the information needed. See "Ingredients > Cautions" On the following page: http://www.simplysupplements.net/product/349/glucosamine-sulphate-2kcl-1000mg/ Please advise why a genuine live page is not better than an archive of a dead page, when the information that is needed, is present?

Thanks, Matthew Cocking — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.233.134.58 (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a big thing, but WP:RS advises that "e-commerce links should be replaced with non-commercial reliable sources if available". The archived link is not so old as to be out of date, so there is no harm in including it. Links to commercial sites are, however, always a little suspect. There are occasions when they can be included, but in general it's best to avoid them. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick reply. I understand. Such as shame, its always a big thing for us to have that opportunity however it makes perfect sense to me now. Thanks for clearing things up and I will bear that in mind next time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.233.134.58 (talk) 10:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Stemonitis (talk) 09:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I received Notification that reverted inserting image in Daphnia pulex... Why revert my contribution? I'm not understand this, so I want to explan this. (My mother tongue is not English, Please understand I am not good at English.)--커뷰 (talk) 08:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is of extremely low quality. I'm not at all sure what it shows, but it doesn't seem to be any kind of Daphnia, let alone D. pulex. The filename suggests it to be Cyclops, but it doesn't closely resemble that, either. Overall, then, there is so little detail that the image is almost worthless for illustrating any article in the encyclopaedia, and is completely irrelevant to Daphnia pulex. See WP:IUP. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stemonitis: please don't use rollback for this kind of revert in future. An edit summary was needed. Cheers — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing "ibid" references. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing. It's funny – it was never meant to be a great quest, but I have kept plugging away at the backlog, and by now, to mym surprise, I've got through most of them. (I didn't write down how many there were when I started, but I think it was around 1960–1970.) I've certainly slowed down, but I'm still making progress, and I will continue to do so. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a draft of a page to try to explain the various uses of that species name, based on what we discussed. Could you take a look to see if it is viable as a wikipedia entry? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I might add – and this is one of the few things that is fairly certain in the whole story – is that Rubus fruticosus is the type of the genus Rubus; that entails its being in Rubus subg. Rubus and in Rubus sect. Rubus, which may not be apparent to the lay reader, although I can't think how to express that well. Apart from that one addition, I think it's a pretty fair description of the situation. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should add: thanks for doing this. I hadn't necessarily expected anything to change as a result of my enquiry; I just wanted to understand the decisions that had been made. I think that having a page that explains the name Rubus fruticosus is a very good thing; it's just a shame that the concept of Rubus fruticosus is itself so nebulous. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've tried to add that. May posterity in the form of wikipedia readers (if any) not choke on it. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Do you have Stace 3rd edition to hand? I won't have access to it again for a couple of weeks, and I took the microspecies number from the 2nd edition. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Here are the numbers from the 3rd edition:

• R. sect. Rubus; 20 miscrospp.
• R. sect. Glandulosus; 289 miscrospp.
• R. sect. Corylifolii; 24 miscrospp.

--Stemonitis (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've known that you have created and successfully maintained Cite WoRMS template. Could you please help to create a similar template for Species File Software (for Orthoptera in this link)? However, main page is: this one and it has too many branches, all of which you can seen in this Google search for "speciesfile.org". It is quite large and reliable source for insects. I'd much appreciate any kind of help in creating similar template. thank you in advance. Hanberke (talk) 06:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the detailed list and statistics. Hanberke (talk) 06:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have had to block User talk:Planonasus for disruptive editing, primarily persistent use of cut and paste moves. Since you had previously blocked him for one month I blocked him for three this time. But if you feel a different block period is warranted (including indef), I will defer to your judgement. Rlendog (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

My name is Kim Renfro, and I'm a digital culture reporter for Tech Insider. I wasn't sure the best way to reach out, so here I am. Would you be interested in speaking to me about how you uncovered/removed the Sean Mann hoax? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Mann page) I'm really interested to learn more about your work as a Wikipedia user. My email address is krenfro@techinsider.io. Thank you! Kimrrenfro (talk) 18:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC) Kim[reply]

Hi, out of my area of expertise, but Pholadomyoida was actually about Anomalodesmata when I came across it. I've tidied the text so that it deals correctly with this taxon, but it needs an admin to move the article. (I don't know that the previous edits that changed the text from Pholadomyoida to Anomalodesmata were correct; I just tidied it as I found it.) Peter coxhead (talk) 10:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay; I was away, so I have only just seen your message. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problems; not a much-viewed page! Thanks. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stemonitis. You moved Actaea (crab) to Actaea (genus) some time ago. There is also a plant genus, Actaea (plant). I'm not sure what the best disambiguation term is for arthropod genera when "(genus)" is ambiguous. Various articles use "(crab)", "(decapod)", "(crustacean)" and "(arthropod)" (as well as other terms not applicable to crabs). Would you mind revisiting the Actaea move? Plantdrew (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems straightforward enough. I have moved the crab article back, and quickly cobbled together a dab. page to fill the gap (I'm not sure what templates and format are currently preferred for that kind of dab. page, so it may well need revisiting). I see the incoming links had already been dealt with. --Stemonitis (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It looks like dab pages with a parenthetical term are automatically put in a maintenance category for potentially incomplete disambiguation. I retargetted "Actaea (genus)" to the dab page at the base title Actaea and added {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}; the base title already had both genera listed. I've been creating various "Foo (genus)" redirects to dab pages when I come across genus names falling under different codes. I haven't done so systematically so far, but at some point I'd like to go through Category:Genus disambiguation pages to make sure all the "(genus)" redirects exist. Plantdrew (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any consensus for formatting genus disambiguations, but for templates they should either have {{Genus disambiguation}} (if the only uses of the term are genera) or {{Disambiguation|genus}} (if there are non-genus uses). Plantdrew (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's good to know. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happened to see this thread. I didn't know about the specific 'genus' use of disambiguation templates, so I too think it's good to know. It doesn't seem to be documented at WP:TOL or any of the member wikiprojects – I think this would be useful. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm never sure what to do about Wikispecies links for spiders. Wikispecies is way, way out of date for spider taxonomy (as has been pointed out on a number of its talk pages, but there doesn't seem to be anyone there wanting to sort it out). As just one example, Araneoidea hasn't had the list of extant families revised since this version, when the latest reference used was dated 1998. Although later references have been added, the list has not been changed.

A big problem for me with Wikispecies, which depends on there being a single working classification, is that there is no settled phylogeny and hence classification for spiders. I've been reading the literature intensively for the last month or so, and a summary from a 2013 article says it all: "Coddington's (2005) summary phylogeny based entirely on morphological data ... serves well as a consensus view of phylogenetic knowledge of spiders at the beginning of this millennium. ... numerous morphological and molecular phylogenies have been published since Coddington (2005), and what we have learnt from these can be summarized in a few words: most deep clades in spider phylogenetics are disputed, mainly by molecular results. Not only are new molecular studies incongruent with much of 'traditional' knowledge but they are often incongruent with one another."^[1] (The Wikispecies system is not even consistent with Coddington (2005).) Nothing published in 2014 or 2015 seems to refute this summary; a larger portion of the spider genome is now being used and results continue to reject many older morphological classifications, while not being fully consistent with one another.

So I never add Wikispecies links to any spider articles lacking them, whether or not I created them. If one is already in an article, I don't like to remove it, so I just leave it alone, whether set up correctly or not. Perhaps this is just evading the issue. I'd be interested in your views on this. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. I don't pretend to know much at all about spider taxonomy, but from what I've seen I'm not surprised it's contentious. Much like higher plants, the families may be fairly clear-cut, but their inter-relationships are not. Hopefully, genomic data will allow the arachnologists to produce something akin to the APG and settle things. What we do until then, I couldn't say.

With regards to this edit (which is I guess what prompted this discussion), I couldn't see that there was any point in having an ill-formatted link, so I formatted it the usual way. It may well be that the link isn't worth including – I didn't investigate that point at all – but it might as well look right. Having now had a look at the Wikispecies page, there doesn't seem to be much there that either isn't already included, or couldn't be included, on the en.wiki page. WP:EL advises against linking to "any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article". Wikispecies links often seem to fall quite close to that threshold, even in better curated cases. I think many editors assume that, wherever a Wikispecies page exists, it should be linked to here. I don't think that's necessarily the case. WP:SIS suggests links should be put in place (only) "when such links are likely to be useful to our readers", which seems like the right principle to me.

I guess the ideal solution, if people had enough time and inclination, would be to fix up Wikispecies' coverage of spiders. It sounds like there would be a good case for using Coddington's system as the latest available consensus view. A simpler solution would be to be bold and just remove any Wikispecies links you think aren't improving the articles that include them. I see you've brought the subject up at WT:SPID, which I was going to suggest, although it doesn't seem to get a lot of visitors. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. Since you're quite right that an ill-formatted link isn't of any point, I will in future be bolder, and remove Wikispecies links that I don't think add anything or are otherwise not useful (and correctly format any that I think are useful).

Re WT:SPIDERS, it's a shame that there doesn't seem to be anyone around at present – one reason I thought it would be more useful to ask you. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On a somewhat related note, Stho002 has been doing a little bit of editing on en.wikipedia under several new usernames in recent weeks. I can PM you the accounts if you're interested in keeping track of his socks. Plantdrew (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer. I did have a mental note of a few such accounts a while back, but after a break from editing, I can no longer remember them, and I don't particularly want to. From my point of view, his block was (initially at least) for incivility, so as long as he's playing nicely, I'm not too bothered. The later block was for sockpuppetry, so there would be a case for further blocks if someone wanted to pursue it. I don't. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Stemonitis (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cathal Gannon

added links pointing to William Stuart and Peter Pearson

Postdramatic theatre

added a link pointing to Avant-garde theatre

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Stemonitis (talk) 10:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought persondata had been deprecated. Am I missing something? Schwede66 19:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So it has. That must have happened while I was off-wiki. Apologies for the inconvenience; I have reverted myself. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May I impose on you to review the following image for proper spelling and categorization? [5] The auto-correct feature on my laptop makes changes I'm unaware of, not to mention how my brain function has been less than optimal today. Also, I was in the process of expanding Thysanozoon nigropapillosum and would be honored if you would give it a look, if you are so inclined. I was just reading the following [6] and was going to use it as one of the sources to expand the article. One last imposition (well, maybe not the last) - would you also look at the following image [7] and advise if it is properly identified? Thanking you in advance....Atsme^📞📧 16:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My knowledge of marine life, such as it is, is pretty much restricted to crustaceans, so I don't think I can be any help on the ID front. I am happy to give advice on other aspects of editing (although the article on Thysanozoon nigropapillosum looks pretty decent to me), particularly if you have specific questions. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and I just wanted to add that if I was shopping online for a very special lobster dinner, and if I had to pick one based on images....well, you can probably guess which one I'd pick, although I have harvested crayfish from ditches in Houston, Tx. Atsme^📞📧 23:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Stemonitis (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of Genera of India (Excluding Lakshadweep). Since you had some involvement with the List of Genera of India (Excluding Lakshadweep) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Click Beetles (Coleoptera: Elateridae) of Maharashtra. Since you had some involvement with the Click Beetles (Coleoptera: Elateridae) of Maharashtra redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	Time To Spread Some Happy Holiday Cheer!!
	I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about the digitized version is that it doesn't need water, and it won't catch fire.
	Wishing you a joyous holiday season... ...and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉
	Atsme📞📧 16:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]	Pure pun-ishment. [8]

I would be grateful for your help. In the book by Burrows, E.M. 1991. The Alga British Isles Volume 2 Chlorophyta. Natural History Museum Publications ISBN 0-565-00981-8 the genus Enteromorpha is included and 8 different species are listed. It lists Ulva as a different genus, of which there three species in the British Isles, one of which is Ulva lactuca. I cannot enter Enteromorpha in a new file as Wikipedia refers me back to Ulva - always! I would be grateful for your help.Osborne 20:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response. I'm not sure what the problem is here. Are you saying that Enteromorpha is a redirect to sea lettuce (Ulva)? If so, it should be possible for you to edit that page. However, it seems that the consensus view is that Enteromorpha is best sunk into Ulva (as followed by AlgaeBase and others), based on a 2003 paper by Hayden et al., post-dating than your 1991 source. The older source does match what I was taught and the names I am familiar with, but it seems that the taxonomy has moved on since. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have been resolved at User talk:Plantdrew#Ulva and Enteromorpha. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you whether the images on blue crayfish actually depict Procambarus alleni? Apparently somebody on the French Wikipedia suggested that Cherax quadricarinatus is depicted (see here). Plantdrew (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't know. Proper crayfish identification is notoriously tricky, requiring detailed views of the male gonopods. Misidentifications are particularly likely with aquarium specimens, and I suspect that many aquarists with a blue crayfish assume or believe that their animal is the "blue crayfish", i.e. Procambarus alleni. I would suspect that File:Procambarus alleni.jpg is more likely to be P. alleni than C. quadricarinatus – it lacks the conspicuous red claw of the male C. quadricarinatus and the pattern of ridges on the carapace is more like that of P. alleni – but I wouldn't rule out other Cherax species, or other Procambarus species, for that matter. The best solution in this case is probably to use one of the other images purporting to be of P. alleni, many of which are technically far better, and where the identification has not been disputed. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Stemonitis (talk) 10:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thacla is a section of the genus Caltha, and at some time C. natans was made type of a genus Thacla. So I made a redirect. However, List of Marilyns on Scottish islands, contains Thacla, which is a hill in Scotland (I never knew). It turns out Thacla is ambiguous. As I know nothing of Scottish hills, perhaps it is better if someone that worked on the List of Marilyns would solve this little problem. Regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look around, and I reckoned the primary meaning of "Thacla" was probably the Scottish hill (better known as "Hecla"). Accordingly, I have knocked up a quick stub at Hecla (South Uist), and redirected Thacla to there, with a {{redirect}} notice back to Caltha. I hope that all sounds reasonable. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! Are you aware that Hecla sounds the same as Hekla? Perhaps a distinguish-template would be useful?Dwergenpaartje (talk) 07:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Hekla is linked (twice!) at the disambiguation page Hecla, so I don't know if it needs to be linked directly from the Uist hill. A link from the Uist hill to the disambiguation page might be in order, though. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Sorry to be a bother, but I was hoping if you could explain italics and higher taxa in bacteria a bit further so I don't make any mistakes in the future. I know how long it takes to italicize and remove italics en masse, so I apologize for making you do that. (Brief explanation: I'm used to seeing et al. without italics per the APA and OED style guides, and I've seen it removed per MOS:FOREIGN, so removing italics from it is sort of an automatic reaction for me.) (Also, in the proposed policy Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Organisms#Scientific names, it states that higher taxa should not be italicized for any organism (including bacteria). Is that incorrect?) Thanks, Me, Myself & I (talk) 08:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert on bacterial taxonomy, but my understanding is that all bacterial taxon names are supposed to be italicised under the relevant Code, and I think that also applies independently to viruses. As it happens, the code for plants, fungi, etc. also recommends italicising all taxa, but in practice almost nobody does that, so the standard approach is the one you're familiar with, italicising from the genus-group downwards.

Coming from a scientific background, seeing "et al." in roman (non-italic) type just looks wrong to me, and the standard approach in the field is to put it in italics. Increasingly, journals are setting it in roman type, but I think that's just based on some flawed idea of "clutter", rather than through any consistent justification. It is clearly used as a foreign phrase, as can be seen from the fact that when it appears in sentences, most good writers will rephrase it as "Jones and colleagues", rather than writing "Jones et alii", so I don't think MOS:FOREIGN is a good enough reason on its own. I don't think there is a Wikipedia guideline either way, but my impression is that it is more generally italicised within science. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. Before I discovered Citation Style 1, I italicized et al., but since CS1 displays et al. without italics, the articles looked a bit inconsistent. I suppose I should try to avoid the construction entirely for now. Thanks again, Me, Myself & I (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tend not to use display_authors=etal, just because there's no need for it. Wikipedia is not short of space, so we are free to give authors the courtesy of listing them all. I think that's the only instance where the formatting of "et al." is not manual. --Stemonitis (talk) 04:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to sound like a broken record, but thank you so much for doing that. The "explicit use of et al." error is one of the many banes of my existence. (I must confess to being rather lazy most of the time and using displayauthors=etal instead of listing all the authors in the correct style.) To reiterate, I'll probably avoid touching et al. in the future. I hope you have a good day, and goodbye. Me, Myself & I (talk) 05:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Stemonitis (talk) 13:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd value your view on the issue raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Higher taxa articles at English names: singular or plural? – you've much longer experience here than most of us. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a think about it, and get back to you. I can see arguments either way at the moment. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As can I! Although both plant and animal articles are overwhelmingly at the singular, I guess because of WP:SINGULAR, yet the majority I've looked at are like Crab – they begin with the plural. Has this ever been discussed before, I wonder? Peter coxhead (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I am writing to you as your name appears last in the edit list for the page for this plant. I have recently returned from Kirstenbosch and have a picture, with label, of this plant. Unfortunately, it looks completely different from the laurel-like plant pictured on the page. I have made my photo (to which I claim copyright for now) accessible here. https://Rowley06.de.quickconnect.to/direct/photo/share/xkHxhwQJ Any thoughts? Blueflightmedic (talk) 09:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything much about South African botany, but I'd be fairly sure the plant you have photographed is not Clutia. As you say, it doesn't resemble other pictures of Clutia at all. Your plant appears to have broad, opposite, toothed leaves, all of which would be consistent with a family like the Lamiaceae. The leaf shape is close to those of some species of Plectranthus – quite a large genus in South Africa. Without flowers, it may not be identifiable. Sorry I can't be of more help. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The main author of Clutia pulchella, JMK, may be able to help further. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick reply. I agree, although I am learning about the SA flora too. I'll follow up your suggestion. Blueflightmedic (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message on my talk page. In short: The main plant on your Kirstenbosch photo is indeed not Clutia, but probably Plectranthus as Stemonitis suggested. JMK (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no great fan of long lists of minor taxa in taxoboxes (and I removed a lot from spider taxoboxes^†), but I think there is a case for displaying one of the three large subgroups of spiders (Mesothelae, Mygalomorphae and Araneomorphae) between "Order: Aranae" and the family. Spiders are a large enough group to bear some subdividing, and mygalomorphs are recognizably different from "true spiders" (araneomorphs).

It's not necessary to display Opisothelae, I think: it's more of a clade label than a real grouping. So I would restore |always_display= to Template:Taxonomy/Araneomorphae.

As an analogy, all the crab species articles I've looked at have "Infraorder: Brachyura" in their manual taxoboxes; crabs are distinctly different from other groups of decapods, such as lobsters/crayfish. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^† I haven't done much with mygalomorphs yet, so Australian funnel-web spider is an example of the kind of taxobox that was usual in most spider articles; I've fixed many of the araneomorph ones. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Every clade is distinctly different in some way from its sister clade, so that is not in itself a source of significance. The way I see it, the inclusion of minor taxa in taxoboxes is mostly about how familiar that group is, there being no other objective measure of significance that I can think of. In the case of crabs, I would expect any lay reader to expect one of the taxa in the taxobox to be "crabs", and one of the taxa in the taxobox of a spider to be "spiders". Crabs are unusual in that two of the significant (i.e. familiar) groups that they belong to are represented by taxa at minor ranks – they are crustaceans (a subphylum), and they are crabs (an infraorder). I am not convinced of the same being true for spiders. Their families will inevitably be clustered into various clades within the order, but I can't see that any of them is so significant that a lay reader couldn't go through the intermediate step of the family article. (There are 5000 jumping spiders alone; must every species-level article link to the infraorder?) That said, I'm no expert on spiders, so if you think an additional taxon is justified, then I will defer to you. But two is probably overkill. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree re two levels; I guess it was just my now old-fashioned attachment to ranks that made it seem odd to treat a suborder and two infraorders as the three main divisions of the order, but on a clade-based view, the rank doesn't matter.

I think that those interested in spiders (a slightly more select group than the "lay reader") do know the difference between tarantulas, bird-eating spiders, and the like (mygalomorphs), some of which are kept as pets, and "true spiders" (araneomorphs). So let's agree on one extra level between family and order.

I may want to ask for your support if other editors object to my removing tribes, subfamilies, superfamilies, etc. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Stemonitis (talk) 11:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a "nasty hack" at Dactylorhiza majalis subsp. traunsteinerioides. Is the problem you were trying to solve that "D. m. subsp. traunsteinerioides" doesn't wrap and so is too wide? If so, I wonder if we can solve it more generally in the underlying taxobox code. My view is that "no wrap" should be applied to the string "genus specific-epithet" and to "subsp. subspecific-epithet" but that a line break before "subsp." is always ok. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was the problem. I'm not sure I agree that the genus + specific epithet combination always needs to be on one line – I can't see that working for Leucospermum hypophyllocarpodendron, for instance. But even if a simple binomen were to be prevented from wrapping, a trinomial should almost certainly be allowed to break; they will quite often be wider than the taxobox would otherwise be. Looking through a few entries in Category:Plant subspecies, I would say that most of the taxoboxes are being distorted by the insistence on <nowrap></nowrap>. I suspect the automatic taxobox code could be adjusted to use non-breaking spaces instead of a <nowrap></nowrap> wrapper; alternatively, it may be possible to insert a zero-width space with <span style="white-space:normal;"></span> around it to override the no-wrap wrapper, as I had to do for L. hypoblahblahblah. Even better might be to remove the <nowrap></nowrap>: what's the disadvantage of allowing all the entries in the taxobox to wrap when required, as would occur for running text elsewhere? --Stemonitis (talk) 12:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All the taxobox templates, manual and automatic, seem ultimately to use Template:Taxonomy to display one 'normal' row of the taxobox (i.e. a row containing "Rank: Name"). The text below the section heading "Binomial name" or "Trinomial name" is displayed differently, and does wrap. So it would be easy to turn off no-wrap altogether for the normal rows by changing the style in Template:Taxonomy. However, in running text, I would use D. majalis and D. m. (as you originally taught me, I seem to recall). This is a bit more tricky to arrange, but now that string-handling functions have been implemented in Lua, it can be done – I'll try developing a test version of the template. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have a fix that could be implemented, and which appears to work – there's a test within a simulated taxobox at User:Peter coxhead/Test. I can only test it outside the actual taxobox system, so I can't be absolutely sure how it will behave when called from inside it – both the manual and automated taxoboxes are complex networks of templates. The idea is to remove style="white-space:nowrap;" at Template:Taxonomy and add a call to a new template that replaces the first occurrence of ". " by ".&nbsp;". As a precaution it checks first that the first occurrence is within the first 5 characters, which allows for a genus abbreviation like ''Ph. – the italic-forcing quotes are passed in some cases, and in a manual taxobox you could use the old-fashioned two letter abbreviations for single Greek letters ("Ch.", "Ph.", "Ps.", "Th.").

Should I go ahead and try this live? Where would it be best to request comments if this should happen first? Peter coxhead (talk) 10:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might as well be bold and make the change, but be prepared to self-revert if problems arise. The best forum is probably Template talk:Taxobox, and it might be best to leave a note there explaining what's going on. Fingers crossed! --Stemonitis (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, done. I haven't implicated you! See Template talk:Taxobox#Text wrapping for taxon names. It turned out a little differently than I expected, because the taxon name passed to the output template turns out to be able to contain other wikimedia coding. The change fixes Dactylorhiza majalis subsp. traunsteinerioides without a hack, but "Species: | L. hypophyllocarpodendron" will always be too wide without a soft hyphen hack. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent stuff. That seems to be working generally, at least following a null edit to each article. Leucospermum hypophyllocarpodendron will always be unusually long – that's why I picked it to write – so I don't think we need to worry about that; why Linnaeus invented the two-word name and then tried to shove five or six into that one, I'll never know. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Null edits" / "purges" – I've never quite understood the way that changes to templates otherwise percolate through Wikipedia, but they do eventually. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Shouldn't the table from South African English#Vowels also be removed? It also wrongly says "see a chart of this same information", when actually the text below the hidden table contains more information (the table is also unsourced, and the Cape Flats and Indian South African cells at least partially disagree with, respectively, Finn (2004) and Mesthrie (2004) (both cited at the bottom of the article)). IMO it should be removed. Peter238 (talk) 10:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know enough on the subject to say whether or not the table should be removed outright. I can say that if it is to be retained, it should not be collapsed. If you have doubts about its reliability, the best thing to do is probably to start a discussion on the talk page, and maybe also ask at the relevant WikiProject, in this case Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Peter238 (talk) 10:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Stemonitis,

I note that you have changed the categorization on some of the plant pages I am interested in, such as Stenanthera and Conostephium pendulum. As I understand it, you have added the subfamily category and removed the family category. (For example, C. pendulum is in the Family Ericaceae, Subfamily Styphelioideae, Tribe Styphelieae: You removed "Ericaceae" and added "Styphelioideae".) I wonder why? Earlier you removed the family category from other pages (eg. Myoporum crassifolium). Perhaps there is some rule about categorization of order/family/subfamily that I am ignorant about. I seems that you sometimes allow Order.... in categories, other times Subfamily....... It's not a big deal for me, but it does seem a bit strange when there's a category (eg. Styphelioideae) that's not mentioned anywhere else on the page, including in the taxobox.

So my question is - "Which category/categories out of Order, Family, Subfamily, Tribe, Genus (etc.) should be included, and why?" Perhaps you could refer me to some part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Categorization. The way I read it, the category for Stenanthera and Conostephium should be Ericales? (Answer here or Gderrin (talk) 10:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC) is fine.)[reply]

If you can spare the time.......sincere thanks, and all the best to you. Gderrin (talk) 10:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The principle is that each page on a taxon should appear in only the finest of the purely taxonomic categories that are applicable. (By "purely taxonomic", I exclude intersection categories like Category:Ericales stubs, Category:Ericaceae genera or Category:Ericales of Australia.) If an article is in Category:Myoporum, then it should not appear in a family category, an order category, and so on, because Category:Myoporum is itself a child of Category:Scrophulariaceae, which is in Category:Lamiales, and so on up the tree. There is no strict rule about what ranks should be chosen for categories – it will depend on factors including the numbers of articles in each group – so sometimes it will be subfamilies within a family, sometimes tribes, and sometimes straight to genera. For a small family, there may not be any need to divide the category further. Category:Paulowniaceae only covers a couple of dozen species, so will probably never need to be divided up. Category:Ericaceae, on the other hand, covers quite a number of taxa, and is probably best divided somehow in order to make the resulting category pages manageable. Before my recent efforts, it contained a mish-mash of genus-level, tribe-level and subfamily-level categories, some of which contained very few articles or daughter categories. I therefore chose to standardise to a subfamily-based categorisation, since the subfamilies seem to be stable, well established and suitably small in number. (It is not a problem that a few taxa from small subfamilies, such as Cassiope, are not placed indaughter categories, incidentally.) In general, there has been a tendency to categorise taxa too finely, and there are lots of very small genus-level categories that would be better deleted and their contents returned to the parent category, in my opinion. The most important thing is that readers should be able to navigate the taxonomic category tree and find articles on related taxa easily. It is indeed preferable that the subfamily and/or tribe should be included in the taxobox of each genus (probably not each species), and I have added a few recently. That is certainly an area in which further improvements could be made. Feel free to ask if anything needs clarifying. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm - thank you. I think I understand. (I'll work on it!) I guess that means I should add subfamilies to those taxoboxes. Perhaps you might do me one more favour. I am working on the large genera Melaleuca and Eremophila. If you would tell me what order/family/subfamily category should be on those pages, I would be happy to make sure they all (500-odd) comply. Thank you for your prompt and comprehensive reply above. Gderrin (talk) 10:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's easy. Large genera tend to have their own categories. Any species in Melaleuca should be in Category:Melaleuca and sorted under the epithet (e.g. "[[Category:Melaleuca|officinalis]]"), and similarly for Eremophila, "[[Category:Eremophila (plant)|officinalis]]". --Stemonitis (talk) 11:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whew! Nothing to change there. Cheers for now. Gderrin (talk) 11:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of List of Hypericum species, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.biolib.cz/en/taxonsubtaxa/id3633/.

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

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 07:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's fine. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your alterations to my articles. As you see I am only a novice article writer. So grateful for the assistance !DavidAnstiss (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to tidy up the monotypic spider genera, so that they fit the usual policy, i.e.

• the default is that the article is at the genus, with the species a redirect
• unless the genus needs disambiguation, when the article is at the species, with a redirect at "Genus (spider)"

To achieve this the following moves are needed:

Straight species to genus

• Austracantha minax to Austracantha
• Hadites tegenarioides to Hadites
• Hickmania troglodytes to Hickmania

Disambiguated genus to species

• Diblemma (spider) to Diblemma donisthorpei
• Munduruku (spider) to Munduruku bicoloratum
• Xiombarg (spider) to Xiombarg plaumanni

I'll happily tidy up afterwards if you are willing to make the moves. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gladly – all done! --Stemonitis (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! All now cleaned up. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You left a {{efn}} tag open in the article. I don't know where to close it. Search for "{{efn" in the article to spot it. Bgwhite (talk) 07:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing it out – now fixed. That article was quite difficult to work on, mostly because of the complexity of the nested footnotes and editorial commentary. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your ongoing efforts in tidying up old fashioned "ibid.", "op. cit." and any other such references, and per your own words from 10 months ago already: "I've certainly slowed down, but I'm still making progress, and I will continue to do so" you are clearly a Tireless Contributor. -- Kendrick7talk 09:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It's funny – I've had a few thanks in the last few days, but sometimes it seems to go unnoticed for weeks. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please move Magam Ornamental tiger spider to the species name Poecilotheria vittata?

If you search for "Magam ornamental", there are 5 results in Google, 4 of which are to this Wikipedia and the other to a mirror, so it's not a "common name" and we are creating false hits. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the same species as Poecilotheria striata (in which case a simple redirect would do the trick)? --Stemonitis (talk) 10:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to the World Spider Catalog here they are distinct species. The genus has been worked on by an enthusiastic new editor (who I don't want to discourage too much) largely based on "popular" sources and primary Sri Lankan journal and conference sources, so has needed quite a bit of sorting. The "synonyms" in the articles are still a bit of a mess (see e.g. the taxobox at Poecilotheria formosa) but I think the redirects are right now, or will be if this article is moved. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. (I've now been through all the Poecilotheria species articles and sorted out the worst of the taxonomic errors.) Peter coxhead (talk) 17:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And one more please: Chummidae should be at Chumma according to the usual fauna policy for monogeneric families. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Let me know if you need a hand with any more moves. It's good to feel useful. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you asked!

One advantage of subcategorizing as per Category:Redirects from monotypic taxa of plants is that it shows up articles at the wrong rank, based on our usual policy: all the members of the category should either be taxa above the rank of family or genera needing disambiguation. All of the plant genera in the list below are categorized as monotypic taxa and are monospecific according to The Plant List. There seems no reason why the articles shouldn't all be at the genus as normal:

• Ceratiola ericoides to Ceratiola
• Ecballium elaterium to Ecballium
• Ellisia nyctelea to Ellisia
• Ochroma pyramidale to Ochroma
• Planera aquatica to Planera
• Scyphiphora hydrophyllacea to Scyphiphora
• Streptosolen jamesonii to Streptosolen

There are a few more that need more investigation, since they may not be monotypic. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Let me know if you find any more. --Stemonitis (talk) 21:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll need time to tidy these up first... Peter coxhead (talk) 22:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Stemonitis (talk) 11:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A new editor 'moved' Caldcluvia paniculosa to Ackama paniculosa by cut-and-paste. Plantdrew had the page history fixed, but the move wasn't justified. Both The Plant List, and more importantly, the Australian Plant Census, which is usually treated as pretty definitive for Australian plants, have the species at Caldcluvia paniculosa (see here). (Ackama paniculosa is treated as a nom. inval. and nom. nud., so anyway if the name is to be used it needs re-publishing – see IPNI.)

Could you please move Ackama paniculosa back to Caldcluvia paniculosa? Peter coxhead (talk) 12:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gladly. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just commenting since I was pinged. Ackama paniculosa was re-published by Heslewood in 2013. The paper is cited in the article and is available here. The Plant List doesn't update often, so there's no surprise they don't list the re-publication. I don't know what the update cycle is like for the Australian Plant Census. It is concerning that IPNI doesn't have Heslewood's combination listed. IPNI is supposed to be on top of this stuff.

I have no objection to the move back to Caldcluvia. I know not to use primary sources myself. But I don't make a practice of reverting editors who try to update taxonomy based on primary sources. I do try to get cut-and-paste moves repaired when I come across them. Plantdrew (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the important thing is to keep the edit history together; moving articles between titles is pretty easy. I also have no opinion on which is the correct title. Note, however, that Wikipedia does not have to be up-to-the-minute. It is expected to follow the majority of reputable sources, even if that means lagging a little behind the primary research. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've now asked IPNI about updating their entry; if they accept the combination Ackama paniculosa it may be sensible to move the article, properly of course. In the meantime I'll make sure that the disputed taxonomy is fully described. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that IPNI updated their entry within an hour of my e-mailing them, which is impressive! The taxonomy of this group is problematic the more I look at it; a conservative view seems wisest for the present, and this is what we now have. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The genus Schwalbea is monotypic according to reliable sources (notwithstanding The Plant List's erroneous extraction of information from Tropicos), so please move:

• Schwalbea americana to Schwalbea

Thanks. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done – a bit differently this time, because I thought it best to preserve the non-negligible edit history at the target (now at "Schwalbea (genus)"), so you may find less cleanup to do this time. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please move Suarezia to Suarezia ecuadorana and then move Suarezia (disambiguation) to Suarezia? The plant genus at the base title is monotypic. While looking into whether it the plant was primary topic over Suarezia (beetle), I came across a mess of unresolved homonyms. LepIndex] sees nothing wrong with a moth Suarezia. And WoRMS lists an isopod that apparently has priority over the moth and the beetle.

And according to Suarezia (beetle), it is also monotypic, so that article should perhaps be moved to Suarezia albicollis (the source link is dead, so I can't confirm monotypy).

Thanks in advance. Plantdrew (talk) 04:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Suarezia Théry, 1912 (Coleoptera: Buprestidae) is now Suarezina Théry, 1936 (per ColeopSoc), and Suarezia Hering, 1926 (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) is now Salvatgea Griveaud, 1977 (perNHM), but Suarezia Budde-Lund, 1904 is indeed valid. So the crustacean wins – good! I'll get things moving. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've sorted things out on this side, but Wikidata is a mess. This item lists a "genus of crustaceans" in the Oncidiinae, with around half the various-language Wikipedia links being for the crustacean, and half for the orchid. It looks as though various Wikidata bots have scraped together various bits of data that refer to genera under different codes and jammed them together into some weird chimaera – a photosynthetic detritivore with a jointed legs and zygomorphic flowers! I could probably fix this one instance, but it suggests that every time a name appears under two or more codes of nomenclature, Wikidata may be very, very wrong. I'm not sure where to go with that. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised Wikidata is having trouble with these. I'm not very aware of good taxonomic sources for insects, so once I turned up the moth genus I went to Catalogue of Life to see what they were citing (yeah, CoL, I know, but I didn't know where else to start for insects). From what CoL had it seemed likely that Wikidata would've sucked up some problems. Thanks for checking better sources and digging up the nomina nova for the insect genera. Plantdrew (talk) 06:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the current content of Category:Redirects from monotypic taxa of plants, this is the last set of moves needed to ensure compliance with policy on monospecific genera. (The Plant List is again in error for some of these, having picked up wrong information from Tropicos, but all have at least one reliable source attesting that they are monospecific.)

• Cynomorium coccineum to Cynomorium
• Faidherbia albida to Faidherbia
• Harrimanella hypnoides to Harrimanella
• Lecomtella madagascariensis to Lecomtella
• Matteuccia struthiopteris to Matteuccia
• Peridictyon sanctum to Peridictyon
• Pseudorontium cyathiferum to Pseudorontium
• Tetrameles nudiflora to Tetrameles

Thanks! Peter coxhead (talk) 10:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll piggyback on Peter's request with a few more that should use the binomial for natural disambiguation:

• Cavea (genus) to Cavea tanguensis
• Benzonia (plant) to Benzonia corymbosa
• Cruciger (fungus) to Cruciger lignatilis (maybe skip this one? I don't know if fungi are on-board with binomials for disambiguation of monotypic genera))

On a different note, would you delete Solfia paradoxa? This name doesn't exist. It results from a cut-and-paste error in the taxobox when the Solfia page was created. See the first version of 'Solfia' and compare to Myrialepis (note the genus authority and associated reference on both pages). Thank you. Plantdrew (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All done, with varying levels of subsequent cleanup (mostly zero). I included the fungus, because our naming conventions are global; any WP:LOCALCONSENSUS by Wikipedian mycologists can be overruled. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've done a first-pass clean up, but it would be useful if Plantdrew had time to check as well. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked through them all now. Peter got most of the edits needed after the moves. The problem with the fungi isn't a local consensus, so much as evolving practice not being well documented. Using the binomial to disambiguate monotypic genera is a fairly recent addition to the flora/fauna title guidelines, but there's no reason for fungi people to check those. I've added something about it to the Tree of Life title guidelines. I'll leave a message at WikiProject Fungi to bring them into the loop. There will be some pages that I'll need your help to move. Fishes seem to have an actual local consensus against how we usually handle monotypic taxa, see Category:Monotypic fish genera. Plantdrew (talk) 21:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the fish articles in that category seem to be the work of one or two editors, who perhaps were not aware of the wider consensus. Certainly the fauna rules entail having such articles at the genus title, and they apply to fishes as much as any other animal.

Feel free to let me know about any page moves you need assistance with. Provided I'm around, I'll be happy to help. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Haemanthineae is the correct spelling, not Haemanthinae --Michael Goodyear (talk) 00:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Under the ICN: "A tribe is designated in a similar manner, with the termination -eae, and a subtribe similarly with the termination -inae (but not -virinae)." --Stemonitis (talk) 07:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then Alan Meerow and the ICN need to have a talk about transferring the taxon, since he named it! --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael Goodyear: it's a typo in Meerow & Clayton (2004). If you look at the article, the correct "Haemanthinae" occurs twice (p. 141, p. 142) and the incorrect "Haemanthineae" once (p. 152). Meerow and Clayton didn't name the subtribe; they attribute it to Pax. However, Reveal at Indices Nominum Supragenericorum Plantarum Vascularium attributes "Haemanthinae" to Baker (1878), i.e. prior to Pax (1887). Whatever the correct authority, the article should be moved.

There's also a slightly more subtle problem in citing Meerow's works in support of sub-familial classifications, because he does not accept the APG's broader Amaryllidaceae, so the taxobox at Haemanthinae is not entirely self-consistent. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but is it? That was my impression at first - was it an error, a typo, or deliberate. To change it would be OR without appropriate authority. So I checked subsequent authors who cite this paper and saw they also used Haemanthineae. As far as the two other mentions in the paper, they clearly relate to earlier uses than Meerow. So I don't think it should be changed without citation. As far as what Meerow accepts, he can hardly be faulted for his usage in 2004, since that use of Amaryllidaceae s.l. only became accepted in 2009, and a search of his work shows he was not only fully aware of it but involved in the discussions of what to call the enlarged family, the first choice of which was not Amaryllidaceae. When I said he "named" it, I meant he defined it phylogenetically. Wether it is moved or not it will require the "synonym".--Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sure it's a typo – whether others copied it doesn't alter that. (The biological literature is full of people copying errors.) In addition, Article 19.7 is crystal clear: "When a name of a subdivision of a family has been published with an improper Latin termination, such as -eae for a subfamily or -oideae for a tribe, the termination must be changed to accord with Art. 19.1 and 19.3". So even if Meerow & Clayton intended the "-ineae" ending, it must be changed to the correct "-inae", just as other mandated corrections are always made to published names. There's nothing OR about this; it's simply following the Code which governs botanical names.

Re the other issue, of course Meerow et al. are entirely free to use Amaryllidaceae with a narrower circumscription: I wasn't in any way criticizing this usage, which was wholly legitimate then and still is. The point I didn't make clear is that when different circumscriptions are mixed in an article or taxobox, there needs to be some explanation to the reader, if only in a footnote. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point Im trying to make is the perennial WP one about sources - I can't just write - this is wrong, wthout a citation that says it is, regardless of what I think or you think. I'm still trying to find a solution to that. I spotted the fact we had a problem right away. And of course the alternative spelling appears many times on WP. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source is clear: articles 19.3 and 19.7 of the ICN.

As for the spelling on Wikipedia, that's exactly the problem: we are propagating an error and should not. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, what is your basis for thinking that the spelling that contravenes the ICN is the one intended by Meerow and Clayton? --Stemonitis (talk) 13:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is simply that we don't know till somebody including the authors either corrects it or contradicts it. We cannot substitute personal opinion for citation, that's a WP thing whether we like it or not. I was working on an explanatory note, but it looks as if Peter Coxhead has jumped in while I was doing it. btw Peter efn does allow references (I use efn with sfn all the time), and I was just about to add it when you changed it! Saying it contravenes ICN is fine, but it does not prove the authors intent.

On the other issue of sensu, I am not in favour of widespreae use of this. Part of the rationale of APG was that everybody's Liliaceae or Amaryllidaceae or anything else was different, so every taxonomic name would be sensu, in a reductionist sense. However when specifically discussing the differences, it is essential to use sensu, although paradoxically I got criticised for using it in Taxonomy of Liliaceae, where the purpose was to set out those differences. Anyway I will take another look at it. Interesting discussion, that has implications for dealing with other orth. var.. Incidentally there are errors in that paper, such as when they cite Traub incorrectly.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The problem is simply that we don't know" – so why not assume good faith on their part, and assume that the correct spelling ("correct" in terms of the Code) is the one they intended? That seems the more charitable alternative. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is the approach we have used on that page, short of asking Alan himself - which I might do, yet. But I doubt WP would accept that as a verifiable citation! --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't make any difference if they had intended that spelling. Article 19.7 requires any misspelling to be corrected. A string of characters that doesn't conform to the code simply isn't a botanical name, by definition.

@Michael Goodyear: I always find refs in notes tricky, so did it the way I knew it worked. Do fix it to be consistent with the rest of the article. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For what seem to me to be good reasons (see User talk:Peter coxhead#Authority of subfamilies), Roussea simplex was moved to Roussea, and the latter made a redirect to the former. However, this was done by another editor by "cut-and-paste" and so needs fixing. Could you do this, please, unless another admin does it first? Peter coxhead (talk) 10:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Peter coxhead (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks. Further help will always be welcome Osborne 20:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on List of Hypericum species requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.theplantlist.org/1.1/browse/A/Hypericaceae/Hypericum/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

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 removed 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. David Biddulph (talk) 15:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bacillochilus xenostridulans is the only species in Bacillochilus (as per the article and the World Spider Catalog), so the article should be moved to the genus as usual. Thanks! Peter coxhead (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Stemonitis (talk) 08:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; now cleaned up. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At Dolichognatha, all the blue links to species that I have checked are redirects back to the genus. These are unhelpful and generally to be avoided. Do I need to list them all as RfD's to get them deleted? How is it best to proceed? Peter coxhead (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it were up to me, they would be fair game for speedy deletion. Experience suggests, however, that other people see this differently. The safest solution probably is to go through a big old RfD, I'm afraid. (I have redirects coloured green when I'm logged in – I forget how – and all the species on that list except D. comorensis and D. lonarensis are indeed redirects.) --Stemonitis (talk) 12:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... I thought this was probably the case. Somewhere there's some guidance about not redirecting species to the genus, I'm sure, although I can't find it right now. I'll have to search again so I can use it if I set up the RfD process. When there's just the odd such redirect I usually construct a stub, but there are too many here to be bothered with at present.

Plantdrew helpfully explained at User talk:Peter coxhead#Green redirects how to change the colour of redirects; very useful. Thanks for pointing me towards this. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my proposal to speedily rename Category:Denmark music awards to Category:Danish music awards Hugo999 (talk) 04:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I happened upon Bouchetispira vitrea, which I think should be at the genus, but you know more about molluscs than I do, I believe. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know very little about molluscs, but enough to manage a page move now and then! --Stemonitis (talk) 13:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no, confusing my "shellfish" subcategories! Peter coxhead (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You may be interested in participating in the African Destubathon which starts on October 15. Africa currently has over 37,000 stubs and badly needs a quality improvement editathon/contest to flesh out basic stubs. There are proposed substantial prizes to give to editors who do the most geography, wildlife and women articles, and planned smaller prizes for doing to most destubs for each of the 55 African countries, so should be enjoyable! Even if contests aren't your thing we would be grateful if you could consider destubbing a few African wildlife articles during the drive to help the cause and help reduce the massive 37,000 + stub count, of which many are rated high importance. If you're interested in competing or just loosely contributing any article related to a topic you often work on, please add your name to the Contestants/participants section. Might be a good way to work on fleshing out articles you've long been meaning to target and get rewarded for it! Diversity of work from a lot of people will make this that bit more special. Thanks. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 04:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stemonitis.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Engaeus affinis and all the other redirects that go to Engaeus. Since you wrote the Engaeus affinis redirect and most of the others, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Austrosynthemis cyanitincta is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austrosynthemis cyanitincta until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. John Tann (talk) 07:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Stemonitis (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Stemonitis,

Probably a trivial matter, but.... I have struggled with whether or not to use a capital letter for a common name in taxoboxes. I noticed that you changed "small-leaved boronia" to "Small-leaved boronia". I used to have a capital letter, then thought "This is not a sentence, so why have a capital?" Is there something in MOS? Keen to know your thoughts! Gderrin (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence case, yes, but it's also the start of a sentence (fragment). For the same reason, although "kingdom", "division", "order" and so on are common nouns and take no capital letter, their first letters are capitalised in the taxobox. At least, that's how I've always seen it. The first letter of each article title is also capitalised accordingly. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I agree, even though I was taught that a sentence must have a verb. I will conform in future (but not going back for the time being). All the best to you! Gderrin (talk) 08:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd put it differently: it's the title of the taxobox, and the English Wikipedia uses sentence case (rather than title case) in titles, as per MOS:HEADINGS. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Axiidae (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
• disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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 removed 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. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 00:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Axioidea (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
• disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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 removed 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. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 00:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hi in Yale School of Architecture article i think there is a mistake in 'former faculty members' part it has been mentioned that Emmanuel Petit was one of yale school of architecture members ,but actually he was a football player . please make this mistake correct . thankyou Mohammedbehjoo (talk) 11:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Phil. Trans. Proc. Royal Soc. A. Since you had some involvement with the Phil. Trans. Proc. Royal Soc. A redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Phil.Trans. A. Since you had some involvement with the Phil.Trans. A redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Phil. Transac.: Biol. Soc.. Since you had some involvement with the Phil. Transac.: Biol. Soc. redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Stemonitis. I'm just posting to let you know that List of the largest genera of flowering plants – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for May 14. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 21:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How exciting! The list appears to be in order, but let me know if anything needs doing. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:02, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of Prime Ministers of Australia by important facts. Since you had some involvement with the List of Prime Ministers of Australia by important facts redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Biff (computing). Since you had some involvement with the Biff (computing) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Paradoctor (talk) 13:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.. Since you had some involvement with the All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lists of Marilyns has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You could look Fontarón please? DJose Méndez (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kenneth B. Raper is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth B. Raper until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. WikiAviator (talk) 06:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Alysseae 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) 03:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Controls (computing) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

G6, technical deletion, the article was moved to an appropriate title, and the extremely ambiguous former name creates clutter and confusion while searching for articles on concepts of controls and control systems in information systems and computing

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Action was declined due to more appropriate procedure, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussionStephen Charles Thompson (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Controls (computing). Since you had some involvement with the Controls (computing) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Brassiceae 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) 05:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Stemonitis. I've recently created a handful of articles on species of king crabs (Neolithodes agassizii, asperrimus, brodiei, bronwynae, capensis, flindersi, vinogradovi, and yaldwyni; Paralomis debodeorum; and Cryptolithodes expansus), and I also recreated an article about the amphipod family Iphigenellidae, which was previously started by someone else and subsequently deleted.

You seem to have a lot of experience with arthropod articles and Wikipedia in general, and I was wondering if you could take a look at these articles (they're just stubs for now) and give broad or specific suggestions for how to improve them going forward. (I should note that I have no educational or professional background relating to biology; I just find it interesting as a layman.)TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Hydrobiologia cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Taxonomy/Maja (genus) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Estopedist1 (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | July 2021 Backlog Drive
July 2021 Backlog Drive: This Thursday, July 1, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age, of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stemonitis. Back in 2009, you created an article about Robert Gurney that says he was involved in founding the Freshwater Biological Association. I've just added a note to Gurney's talk page to say that I can't find any evidence of this. Do you still have access to the source you cited? The ones I can find list Fritsch, Saunders, Pearsall and sometimes others but not Gurney. Thanks for any help you can offer. --Northernhenge (talk) 10:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Northernhenge: see this obituary in Nature, bottom of the second column: "Many years later he took an active part in founding the Freshwater Biological Association with its laboratory at Lake Windermere." Peter coxhead (talk) 11:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Peter coxhead: --Northernhenge (talk) 11:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Good article nominations | January 2022 Backlog Drive
January 2022 Backlog Drive: On New Year's Day, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage.
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Benignity and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 19#Benignity until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BHL has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 07:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Homaridae and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 23#Homaridae until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 05:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Pontastacus and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 25#Pontastacus until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. NotImportant-Biology (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Óengus I for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 04:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Óengus I/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here!

You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Durable has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I doubt the topic is notable and I was unable to find any sources that could contribute to it meeting the WP:GNG or WP:NCORP, including the sources on the German Wikipedia. Should this PROD run 7 days, this page should become a redirect to Durability again (adj. to noun redirect)

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}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

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

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect LSA (Disambiguation) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 24#LSA (Disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Established policy provides for the removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. Your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to the required activity level before the beginning of January 2023.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to engage with the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for re-engaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to re-engage with the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 08:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris, can you confirm that you made this photo? When and where did you make it? Best wishes from Austria. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Colchicum_autumnale.jpg

Antiplag01 (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I took the photo. As the description says, it was taken on September 19th 2004, on Gföhlberg in the Wienerwald. I don't have a GPS location, but it was only 10 minutes from the summit, and I was climbing from Hainfeld to the south-west. I hope this helps. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some background to the question about this now famous photo: [9],[10],[11]. --Túrelio (talk) 18:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow! I had no idea that any of that detective work was going on. Just to remove any last vestige of ambiguity that may exist, I have just uploaded the original version of the photo, before I cropped it and tried to improve the colour balance. I haven't even rotated it (this was the early days of digital photography, and the camera I had then did not automatically rotate images), so the EXIF data should all be intact. (I've just checked, and I still have the camera!) When I say it was only 10 minutes from the summit, that's because the previous photo was timestamped roughly 10 minutes earlier and shows the summit cairn with its sign reading "GFÖHLBERG" / "885 M"; that cairn seems to have collapsed considerably since I was there in 2004. I have pictures from a couple of minutes after the Colchicum image of views towards the Gutensteiner Alpen that one could possibly use to narrow down where exactly I was standing at the time, which might inform the precise locality of the Colchicum. I will happily upload any of these if they would be useful. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:01, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Outlaw (2007film) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 19#Outlaw (2007film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 17:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Established policy provides for the removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. Your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to the required activity level before the beginning of January 2023.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to engage with the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for re-engaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to re-engage with the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Established policy provides for the removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. Your administrative permissions have been removed.

Subject to certain time limits and other restrictions, your administrative permissions may be returned upon request at WP:BN.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Stemonitis. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Durable (company), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Stemonitis. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Durable".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Wild asparagus has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 7 § Wild asparagus until a consensus is reached. TimberToner (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:4th-millennium BC deaths has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Corophiidea has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Sugar Ant has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 25 § Sugar Ant until a consensus is reached. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 03:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Lindsay Dee Joanne Lohan has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 1 § Lindsay Dee Joanne Lohan until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 06:24, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Cerebrum(brain struture) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 15 § Cerebrum(brain struture) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Lophostachys indicating that it is currently empty, 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 it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Karstarma ardea has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 4 § Karstarma ardea until a consensus is reached. This also applies to about 14 other Karstarma redirects. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Stemonitis. I noticed that you created Androsace filicula in 2015 but this new combination was not published until November 2024. I think this edit violates WP:BALL and WP:RS. Although there is no need to take any action because the name is now valid. I am not sure whether there are more similar problems. This is a friendly message to notify you this matter. If you have created any similar redirects (and they have not been published as Androsace filicula), could you please find them out and nominate them for deletion? ——🦝 The Interaccoonale ^{Will be the raccoon race} _{(talk・contribs)} 11:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Interaccoonale: I don't think it's as clear cut as you imply. The displayed R category on the redirect is "From alternative scientific name of a plant". This wording, rather than "From taxonomic synonym" was deliberately chosen so that it could be used for names which should redirect but are not valid/legitimate under the relevant nomenclature code. There were sources available prior to 2015, such as those currently #4 and #5 in the article, which showed that Pomatosace was embedded within Androsace, so there was some justification for the redirect, given that there was no article for Androsace filicula. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: It is completely possible that somebody has published a new species named "Androsace filicula" before 2024, which is the main problem. In this situation, botanists would have to propose a new alternative name for Pomatosace filicula. (Although I would consider it a kind of vandalism if somebody really did it, it is not prohibited by the code.) ——🦝 The Interaccoonale ^{Will be the raccoon race} _{(talk・contribs)} 01:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Austrian people by populated place indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]